ASSO Santee 
Reet 


Set Pes 
Me abe 
ἤ ὧν 


δ 

i's ᾿ 

AO ys εἴ 

κα 
Ad 


Srom fhe Lifrarp of 
(professor Wiffiam Henry Green 


Bequeathed fp Bim fo 
tbe Lifrarp of 


(Princeton Cheofogica? Seminarp 


BV 648 .C67 1869 

Coleman, Lyman, 1796-1882. 
The apostolical and 
primitive church 


THE 


APOSTOLICAL 


AND 


PRIMITIVE CHURCH 


POPULAR IN ITS GOVERNMENT, 


INFORMAL IN ITS WORSHIP. 


A 


MANUAL 


ΟΝ 
PRELACY AND RITUALISM 


. CAREFULLY REVISED 


AND ADAPTED TO THESE DISCUSSIONS. 


BY 


LYMAN COLEMAN, D.D. 


PROFESSOR IN LAFAYETTE COLLEGE, 


AvuTHOoR OF “ ANCIENT CHRISTIANITY EXEMPLIFIED,” “‘ HISTORICAL TEXT-BooK AND 
ATLAS OF BIBLICAL GEOGRAPHY,” &c. 


PHILADELPHIA 
io Det DI PEENCOTT ἃ €Q. 
1809. 


eRe σι. NR Ba ONIN oN ON σὸς πῆς πῆς νι πῆς πος σης πος oN, ON FN AON FN PON πὴ FN πον PON, δος πος, δι OP oS 
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1869, by 
LYMAN COLEMAN, D.D., 


In the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the United States for the Eastern 
District of Pennsylvania. 


ΟΝ Net? Wed Na ot Nee Nt Vago? 8d eed Nae Net” Mao Na Nat” Nao? Nat Veet Nn” eed Nas? het Nae” Net Vue? Vas? ad” Vue NaH Mast Ne 


LIPPINCOTT’S PRESS, 
PHILADELPHIA. 


PREFACE. 


THE object of the author in the following work is to commend 
to the consideration of the reader the admirable simplicity of the 
government and worship of the primitive church, in opposition 
to the polity and ceremonials of prelacy. 

In the prosecution of this object he has sought, under the 
direction of the best guides, to go to the original sources, and first 
and chiefly to draw from them. On the constitution and govern- 
ment of the church none have written with greater ability, or 
with more extensive and searching erudition, than Mosheim, 
Planck, Neander and Rothe. These have been his principal 
reliance: and after these a great variety of authors. 

The work has been prepared with an anxious endeavor to sus- 
tain the positions advanced, by references sufficiently copious, 
pertinent and authoritative; and yet to guard against an osten- 
tatious affectation in the accumulation of authorities. Several 
hundred have indeed been entered in these pages; but many 
more that have fallen under the eye of the writer have been 
rejected. Much labor, of which the reader probably will make 
small account, has been expended in an endeavor to authenticate 
those that are retained, and to give him an explicit direction to 
them. The whole has been written with studied brevity, and a 
uniform endeavor to make it at once concise, yet complete and 
suggestive of principles. 

The translation of the Introduction was made in Berlin; and 
after a careful comparison with the original by Dr. Neander, 
received his unqualified approbation. It is, therefore, to be 

3 


4 PREFACE. 


regarded as an authentic expression of his sentiments on the 
several topics to which it relates. 

In the preparation of this work the author has studiously 
sought to write neither as a Congregationalist nor as a Presby- 
terian exclusively; but as the advocate of a free and popular 
government in the church; and of simplicity in worship, in har- 
mony with the free spirit of the Christian religion. It is enough 
for the author, and, as he would hope, for both Congregational- 
ists and Presbyterians, if the church is set free from the bondage 
of a prelatical hierarchy, and trained, by simple and expressive 
rites, to worship God in spirit and in truth. In opposition to 
the assumptions of prelacy, there is common ground sufficient 
for all the friends of popular government in the church of Christ 
to occupy. In the topics discussed in the following pages they 
have equal interest, whether they would adopt a purely demo- 
cratical or a representative form of government as the best means 
of defending the popular rights of the church. We heartily wish 
indeed for all true churchmen a closer conformity to the primi- 
tive pattern in government and in worship; but we have no con- 
troversy even with them on minor points, provided we may still- 
be united with them in the higher principles of Christian fellow- 
ship and love. The writer has the happiness to number among 
the members of the Episcopal Church some of his most cherished 
friends, to whose sentiments he would be sorry to do violence by 
anything that may appear in these pages. 

The great controversy of the day is not with true Protestant 
Episcopacy, but with High Church Episcopacy, Popery, Ritual- 
ism, Formalism. Formalism, by whatever name it is known, is 
the great antagonist of spiritual Christianity. Here the church 
is brought to a crisis, great and fearful in prospect, and moment- 
ous, for good or for evil, in its final results. The struggle at issue 
is between a spiritual and a formal religion—against a religion 
which substitutes the outward form for the inward spirit; which 
exalts sacraments, ordinances and rites into the place of Christ 
himself; and disguises, under the covering of imposing ceremo- 
nials, the great doctrines of the cross. Dr. Pusey himself de- 


PREFACE. 5 


clares that on the issue of this controversy ‘‘ hangs the destiny 
of the Church of England ;’’ and the Tractarians again— ‘‘ that 
two schemes of doctrine, the Genevan and the Catholic, are 
probably for the last time struggling within that church.’’ This 
‘‘ sreat Catholic movement,” this ‘‘ Catholic revival’’ of the 
Ritualists, with its endless ceremonials, costumes and “‘ histrionic 
representations,’’ is the great religious controversy of the age. 
It has often engaged the notice of the highest primates of the 
church in England, and of the prime ministers in the British 
Parliament, as ‘‘a grave and serious evil,’’ requiring the atten- 
tion both of church and of state. The ritualistic party them- 
selves claim to be the predominant party and the only true repre- 
sentatives of the Church of England, which, dissevered by the 
Reformation, is soon to be ‘‘reingrafted into the true Catholic 
Church.”’ ᾿ 

In this country the periodical literature and the voluminous 
productions of the press are charged with this ritualistic 
controversy. The last literary labor of the late Bishop of Ver- 
mont was an elaborate effort to establish ‘tthe Law of Ritual- 
ism’? on the authority of the Scriptures, as the ‘‘ glory and 
beauty of the church.’’ This law he gave at the request of a 
large committee of ‘‘ sons in the church,’’ who appear to follow, 
‘‘with a glad mind and will, his godly admonitions, and submit 
— themselves to his godly judgments.’’ The House of Bishops, in 
their late convention, gave to the high church party the sanction 
of their silent approval by refusing all official action in relation 
to it. This ‘‘ masterly inactivity’? is highly commended as the 
surest means of establishing the law of ritualism in their churches. 

Ritualism is the aggressive heresy of our churches. The taint 
of this ritualistic movement has already infected even our Con- 
gregational and Presbyterian churches. An American bishop 
several years since publicly stated that of ‘‘two hundred and 
eighty persons ordained by him, two hundred and seven came 
from other denominations.’’ Another says: ‘‘ From the most 
accurate investigation that can be made, I am led to believe that 
about three hundred elergymen and licentiates of other denomina- 

1 # 


6 PREFACE. 


tions have, within the last thirty years, sought the ministerial 
commission from the hands of bishops of that church; and that 
at least two-thirds were not originally, by education, Episcopa- 
lians, but have come from other folds.’’ Not a few in our 
churches, both of the clergy and the laity, openly advocate or 
silently approve a qualified or partial liturgy. The controversy 
is upon us, and the public, the ministry especially, and candi- 
dates for the ministry, are required to be prepared for the con- 
flict. Those two hundred who have gone from other folds into 
the Episcopal Church, ‘‘not originally by education Episco- 
palians,’’ were they, by education, anything else? Had they 
been duly educated in the ecclesiastical polity of their Pilgrim 
forefathers? Are the principles of this polity duly inculcated 
either in our Congregational and Presbyterian churches, or in 
their theological seminaries? In this eventful crisis we are 
urgently pressed to a renewed examination of the apostolic and 
primitive polity of the church in government and in worship; 
for under cover of these the warfare of ritualism is now waged. 
These are the prominent points, both of attack and of defence, 
to which the eye of the minister, the theological student, and the 
intelligent Christian of every name, should be turned. Let 
them fall back on that spiritual Christianity which Christ and 
his apostles taught. Let them, in doctrine, in discipline, and in 
worship, entrench themselves within the stronghold of this 
religion; and here, in calm reliance upon the great Captain of 
our salvation, let them await the issue of the contest. 

In accordance with these views the following manual, studi- 
ously adapted to this conflict, is respectfully submitted to the 
consideration of the public. The former editions have been 
the subject of frequent and careful revisions. Much has been 
added, and more, by omissions and a severe condensation, has 
given place to these additions. The authorities, as far as 
practicable, have been revised and verified anew by the kind 
aid of gentlemen having access to the libraries of the Theo- 
logical Seminaries at Andover, at Princeton and in New York. 
Candidates for the ministry in our theological seminaries, may 


PREFACE. 7 


find this a convenient manual for reference or for study, in con- 
nection with their recitations and the lectures delivered on 
kindred topics. And clergymen who have neither time nor 
opportunity for such investigations may find here authorities 
laboriously collected and collated for the defence of the several 
arguments by which we earnestly protest that Christ and his 
apostles established the primitive church without a bishop, and 
ordained its worship without a ritual. God isa Spirit; and they 
that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth—in 
the inward spirit, not by an outward form ; least of all, by “‘ the 
mysterious and symbolical pomp’’ of modern ritualism. Can 
these ‘‘carnal ordinances’? ever make him that does ‘‘the 
service perfect as pertaining to the conscience?’’ Sons of the 
Pilgrims! Ministers of grace to Puritan churches! ‘‘ Are ye so 
foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect 
by the flesh ?”’ 


LAFAYETTE CoLLeGsE, Easton, Penn., 1869. 


CONTENTS. 


INTRODUCTION TO THE First EDITION, BY NEANDER...c.cececeseeeeseoees 


PART FIRST. 


THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH—POPULAR IN ITS GOVERNMENT. 


CHAPTER I. 


PRELIMINARY REMARKS ON THE GOVERNMENT AND WORSHIP OF 


THE CHURCH INSTITUTED BY CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLEG......... ἘΣ 


CHAPTER II. 


Tue Primitive CHURCHES FORMED AFTER THE MopDEL OF THE 


πεν ἐπ τὲ ONINAG OG Uicecels corsdole cas ἐς sive cvctaparsaive's ceceseedesenveelocsiseees 


CHAPTER III. 


Tue INDEPENDENCE OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCHES....cccccecsccescecces 
A * 9 


25 


37 


10 CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER IV. 


PAGE 

HILECTIONS BY THE CHURCHES. «0.025 .ccccassncccessesa0siceases cevaveucerauiene « . BO 

1. Beriptural Ar eu memti. ic... si5.c6 005000 naen'cs sotvs aocensredeeeo een . we 

2. Historica! ATSRMeENE. 6. cccesi.'s.ssavconsessenanvamanednanel manor een 61 

oss of the Right.of Suflrage....... .sccasaswvocssesensteens pass neem eee 68 
Remarks: Results upon the Church, the People and the 

MIMISUTY: cceved séewanscisee svesnenbsectees ovotescrercaydaneriacnes teen 79 

CHAPTER V. 

DASCIPTENe BY THE ΘΗΠΕΘΗΕΒυ ὁς ον ον vavnwenseaestapistcnen endecoe ten see 87 

1. Argument from: the Scriptures. ic Ἄορνον δ dades τον ἘΞ eae 88 

2.: Argument. from the Ancient Fathers... cscs: «αν νον seassstosewenee 95 

3. Argument from Modern Ecclesiastical Writers............s000 107 

Ἅ: Arsument trom, AdgHlOgy ..scccass vcsscnexcsesdse seuss onccsinn ΡΝ 199 

POG S Of A GUM τ τ ΤΡ soasswcenans peace evecdsentcatsneheneeaeee 114 

Veurpation ‘by the Priesthood sic... cipasassceceasonessncssducetunsenee 115 
Remarks: Results on the Purity and Efficiency of the 

VIRGEN os vaslsdesvearskat hubacds tcwpascudeh art eahia acmadeuosseteeee eee 119 

Objections ‘to EpiscOpaey css <ivevsnsnsnnsosdnanuiaenoassucunn ΤΡ 121 

CHAPTER VI. 
EQuaALITY AND IDENTITY OF BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS.......0.ses00e 126 
Scriptural Argument. 

Identity of Chair Uitlge siics cicssssescnsensviccsonccsuessincnssscaydvens tara 128 

Identity of their QualiMeavions....cis.\icane<<bcsesnsleres cudoes.csescummaiee 131 

Edentity ‘of their: Dw Gieais ics sauces. <cesse τοῦ <evendea ἐξ κι, σι τον τορος ΤΣ 133 


Identity of their Clerical Order or Rank.........-..000ss00sssessssens 137 


CONTENTS. 15 


PAGE 
James not Bishop of Jerusalem. ....i.........c0e senses εκ τον cvecescovees 139 
PERE PUMIIGUINY,, OF PIMC BUG ns nccanauencccavvcs.cseoocsewescessscudeécaweerves 142 
PTAA EC PCU Oe τς ἘΣ ΘΕ ΕΠ ΠΡ Ἢ 145 
The Angels of the Seven Churches not Bishops............scesees 146 
Historical Argument. 
According to the Ancient Fathers, Bishops and Presbyters 
are— 
ΜΠ τ ΡΞ ΤΣ Ν ΠΤ ΒΒ τε... 5.000 π|0ὕ0..00ὉῦὔὕῦἜυὌΔ| 700 π|00 00 π|ν Ἐν: 151 
MPP 1 1π|| ΕΗ ΤΠ ΟΣ Ὁ ΠΟΘ. τς ςς οτος κυ σον ance aseaccaee bse scccnn resents 153 
ernie τι OTe Ig EPICS. 5 conten qacznadosines aqnesencavenses snave> 162 
ΒΡ ΠΟ ΠΥ le We MCOMUEY conronatsac4/<lse<s setdacaase cot ouptne thcengess το ἘΣ 163 
Divine Right of Episcopacy Disowned.............c0.ccsscsscsssseeeee 111 
Groundless Assumptions of Episcopacy........cssssssesseeeeeeeeeeees 1i7 
CHAPTER VII. 

APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION...... cscccssscessecces Pn te ΤΕ 178 

Apostolical Succession—Groundless, Impossible...............+00 181 
CHAPTER VIII. 

ἘἸΒΕΒΕΥ ῬΕΗΤΑΝ ORDINATION: .. o..cc0ccccecencs sevavecss secconseecnencesss unatewets 185 
ἘΠΕ ΠΗ δὶ ὉΠ ΕΓΊΠΙΙΗ. 2 oes tek conned act <nanasx oes ~scess dacesnigeraunccektende 186 
Bene RTD IGM TUES οτος, αι aedececesjanccsene sewsstsnevesetasnadee 192 
ΕΞ Ὁ ΠΕ ΟΠ ΘΟΗΒΙ ΝΒ. τ away Saas e cace= sicucyencsns τηρεῖν τ 208 
Divine Right first Asserted in the English Church............... 204 
Remarks: Efficiency of Primitive Church Government....... 207 

Encumbrances of the Episcopal Ritual..............ssccecsseeees 212 


The Puritans and weir Principles... .... so<cccopsnssesseneseccssnsse 215 


19 CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER IX. 


PAGE 

ae. SIRE SOK) AUPUSCUP AGS τς 1.1. 12. πε εν τοῖ τες ἐστον τ... 219 
Ascendency of Churches and Clergy in the Cities.............00 . 221 
Presiding Presbyter a Bishop........cccocssssenctesssecesvodsaninteaeeee 224 
Jerome, Hilary and Stillingfleet on the Origin of Episcopacy. 228 
AMETFICAN EPISCOPACY ......cs00. veecer-cecoece seenseess senses ΠΡ 232 

CHAPTER X. 

ΤῊΣ PROGRES OF PPiSGOP ACW. τὺ 0505 vicescens ive duaseotes οὐ το 235 
Meangof its Development.................s0sseeseerees πε αε τν 235 
MRI nace sess oak 20 sons jadnsxssasseeesensberans/sepscueas te ou τ᾿ --.-.. 239 

METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT......000 cesssees ΠΕ νου... 242 
Means of its BstablisMment ....vccsdsvesnebacvessessdensoshseat-ceteeeeeeeae 243 
Sietgalis in Yerard to the Laity: ...2. c... ΠΥ ὙΠ 0.0... 244 
Hesnita in, regard to the Clergy... ...cs.0.cesss'senesensesccstsaasmeareeee 248 
Degeneracy under the Mierarchy.......s.ccnscovscoutasevewss τ... 259 

THe PATRIARCHAL “GOVERMENT f9sp acs pspscdarorissaxsyson ον τ τες 264 

(PHEO PAPAL GOVERNMENT «oo: caneeaswsvesss essen sasncbahaiss sean. τυ τεσ ree 265 
Remarks: Objections: fo Pmelacy 1.0: ti0sssnagsennensaey saveveneleeeeee 268 

A Corrupt Compromise with Paganism..............cssecseseeees . 272 


PART SECOND. 


THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH—INFORMAL IN ITS WORSHIP. 


CHAPTER XI. 


PRAYERS OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURGH........<cccoccsra-ccosseccesseeconssesne 275 
Forms of Prayer— 


Opposed to the Spirit of the Christian Dispensation........,... 275 


CONTENTS. 


Gaposed to the Mxamiple of Chrich..,........7...ccccccescecesceseencees 
Opposed to the Instructions of Christ and his Apostles........ 
ἘΠ 5. ΤΉ eer dete Sula pitieas τι κυ τους Sainged janenersebnie aveuve ssbeeaers 
Poe PTEGHOM OF PTEMbiVe  WOPSH1P 0 <sseeccss scenes conven eadsesyesses 
Liturgical Forms unknown to the Primitive Church. ........... 
BaP ANTS OF ΠΕΡΊ ΘΒ ποῖον πα το πού νυς ταν ττν τας weijertahrateia nia anew 
memarks : Objections to ΠΣ ΤΣ δΒ..ςς Ὁ. . (ον κοῖτον πὸ τη ποις 2,52 ἐρίων 
Popish Origin and Tendencies of the English Liturgy........ 
Doetrinal Errors of the Prayer-Book..............ssepsssecces το 
Bie aalints Of Marland. :.....20s0csrsvaseconanctes on l@hia ideas acai 


CHAPTER XII. 


PSALMODY OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH.......ccccscccsseneccsseesesseesesses 
Pee MAO THN ROTM TCASOM ὦ aaa Rasen atuarenmnwen chdc's sain dd cauclesteaneleatuas 
ee PUM LOUM AD ALOLY «0037 scchetace'serovs fosnssece te saccerdcthessdewens 
BURG το STOMP CP PLEO CC s.<4. 00 secs aacevecacases<rsvoraioescinesr este 


ποτε τ ΒΤ τς ΠΟΤῚ ΠΕΓΙΗ ΟΥ τς ἀπ δι vera Waxedan wachnaesndinp Pecnusanneay decent 


ΜΒ ΟΠ is Pa) ἢ τι μ᾽ 2) 0.1. GU sie κυ noacotoceeeZeeneuits expe caeeen ἐονσος ἀεὺν Κα ΝΣ . 


Changes in the Psalmody of the Church............cscs0+sscveeescons 
Remarks on Congregational Singing, τοις ς του ταν κευυ conta: vassngerans 


Power of (bacred: Psalmod y .. ¢..: +c c2<~ assesctsonsadansGemosedadsanaencgeeel 


CHAPTER XIII. 


ΚΕ ΕΓ ΤΕ ΓΝ, THE PRIMITIVE: CHURCE.......00 ον xc: 5+ cosnessseduamuasecsapanen 
Diseourses of Christ and the Apostles.............<cossesteasacusencesne 
Bre SEN Ee ὑπ τ gaconidaceh aves conus wow snot dans caaveniaeaeeaste τ 
Homilies im. the Greek Charen « .....,.00.0s <0 vo-<eates Ceoxeuadantaapnese=s 
Homilies in the Latin Church ..............cscse0s. Ree ae 


2 


14 CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER XIV. 


PAGE 

PERE DIE NE DICTION vcstaa ρΕοέοὁἕΨἍὁοᾶἝΕἕοΙ“ἔΝ“σἘὁἕἌΨἔὁυοὦυἐὁςσἔοἘοὮἋὌἋοἝ“ “ “ “ρῤ“ῤΠΠΠπΠ πτ-----.- . 373 
Origin and Import of the Rite. .. ......s:s0000ss scons δος τ paneeeaiae 374 
Mode of AGminimisherites th. τος, 0t5-.608<.sk-s een dete eee 379 
Superstitious Perversions of the Benediction.............sseeesseees 382 
Eipiscopacy a Vicarious Religion -.......<:-cesss:sssecesss ΣΡ 384 

EVE DIEM DUK <ccuy scans, nesncdoupieuedconanaamalvcchecsesed:<ah cu svdy π-----.. 389 

INDEXES. 

De Ol URIS 552 cans nntas ontadeiaseseqgee dx ventas tues'nennesterdeaavahausees -.... . 399 
δ νυ πο: OF SATO TILIGR, snscacnneincvlspesdconrasiinedpsucnbsr Πρ -----΄ 401 


ἴα ΣΟΥ ΘΠ] ΒΟΙΒ cc τα. Στὴ dais snaeneguaenn έέποιέὁΕΠΠἘὁᾶΕ|Πέ τ πὲ: 406 


Py Crewe TON. 


BY 
Dr. AUGUSTUS NEANDER, 


PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF BERLIN, CONSISTORIAL 
COUNSELOR, ETC. 


In compliance with the request of my worthy friend, the 
Rey. Mr. Coleman, I am happy to accompany his proposed 
work, on the Constitution and Worship of the apostolical 
and primitive church, with some preliminary remarks. I 
regard it as one of the remarkable signs of the times, that 
Christians, separated from each other by land and by sea, 
by language and government, are becoming more closely 
united in the consciousness that they are only different 
members of one universal church, grounded and built on 
the rock Christ Jesus. And it is with the hope of promot- 
ing this catholic union that I gladly improve this opportu- 
nity to address my Christian brethren beyond the waters 
on some important subjects of common interest to the 
church of Christ. 

This is not the proper place to express in detail, and to 
defend my own views upon the controverted topics which, 
as I have reason to expect from the respected author, will 
be the subject of an extended, thorough and impartial ex- 
amination in his proposed work. My own sentiments have 

15 


16 INTRODUCTION. 


already been expressed, in a work which, I am happy to 
learn, is offered to the English reader in a translation by 
my friend, the Rev. Mr. Ryland, of Northampton, in Eng- 
land.! I have only time and space, in this place, briefly to 
express the results of former inquiries, which, with the rea- 
sons for them, have on other occasions already been given 
to the public. 

It is of the utmost importance to keep ever in view the 
difference between the economy of the Old Testament and 
that of the New. The neglect of this has given rise to the 
grossest errors, and to divisions, by which those who ought 
to be united together in the bonds of Christian love have 
been sundered from each other. In the Old Testament, 
everything relating to the kingdom of God was estimated 
by outward forms, and promoted by specific external rites. 
In the New, everything is made to depend upon what is 
internal and spiritual. Other foundation, as the apostle 
Paul has said, can no man lay than that is laid. Upon 
this the Christian church at first was grounded, and upon 
this alone, in all time to come, must it be reared anew and 
compacted together. Faith in Jesus of Nazareth, the Sa- 
viour of the world, and union with him, a participation in 
that salvation which cometh through him,—this is that in- 
ward principle, that unchangeable foundation, on which the 
Christian church essentially rests. But whenever, instead 
of making the existence of the church to depend on this 
inward principle alone, the necessity of some outward form 
is asserted as an indispensable means of grace, we readily 


1 History of the Planting and Training of the Christian Church, by 
the Apostles, by Dr. A. NEANDER, Ordinary Professor of Theology 
in the University of Berlin, Consistorial Counselor; translated from 
the third edition, by J. E. Ryland. 


INTRODUCTION. , 1 


perceive that the purity of its character is impaired. The 
spirit of the Old Testament is commingled with that of the 
New. Neither Christ nor the apostles have given any un- 
changeable law on the subject. Where two or three are 
gathered together in my name, says Christ, there am I in 
the midst of them. This coming together in his name, he 
assures us, alone renders the assembly well pleasing in his 
sight, whatever be the different forms of government under 
which his people meet. 

The apostle Paul says indeed, Eph. iv. 11, that Christ 
gave to the church certain offices, through which he ope- 
rated with his Spirit and its attendant gifts. But assuredly 
Paul did not mean to say that Christ, during his abode on 
earth, appointed these offices in the church, or authorized 
the form of government that was necessarily connected with 
them. All the offices here mentioned, with the single ex- 
ception of that of the apostles, were instituted by the apos- 
tles themselves, after our Lord’s ascension. In making 
these appointments, they acted, as they did in everything 
else, only as the organs of Christ. Paul, therefore, very 
justly ascribes to Christ himself what was done by the 
apostles in this instance as his agents. But the apostles 
themselves have given no law requiring that any such form 
of government as is indicated in this passage should be per- 
petual. Under the guidance of the Spirit of God, they gave 
the church this particular organization, which, while it was 
best adapted to the circumstances and relations of the church 
at that time, was also best suited to the extension of the 
churches in their peculiar condition, and for the develop- 
ment of the inward principles of their communion. But 
forms may change with every change of circumstances. 


Many of the offices mentioned in that passage either were 
2 * : 


18 INTRODUCTION. 
¢ 


entirely unknown at a later period, or existed in relations 
one to another entirely new.” — 

Whenever at a later period, also, any form of church 
government has arisen out of a series of events according 
to the direction of divine providence, and is organized and 
governed with regard to the Lord’s will, he may be said, 
himself, to have established it, and to operate through it, by 
his Spirit; without which nothing pertaining to the church 
can prosper. The great principles which are given by the 
apostle, in the passage before us, for the guidance of the 
church,—these, and these only, remain unchangeably the 
same; because they are immediately connected with the 


2 One peculiar office, that of the prophets, in process of time ceased 
in the church, while something analogous to the gift of prophecy still 
remained; indeed it might be easily shown that the prophetic oflice 
continued at that early period so long as it was necessary for the es- 
tablishment of the Christian church, under its peculiar exigencies and 
relations. Pastors and teachers are mentioned in this passage, in the 
same connection. Their office, which related to the government of 
particular churches, is distinguished from that of those who had been 
mentioned before, and whose immediate object was the extension of 
the Christian church in general. And yet a distinction is also made 
between these pastors and teachers, inasmuch as the qualifications for 
the outward government of the church, κυβέρνησις, were different from 
those which were requisite for the guidance of the church by the 
preaching of the word, διδασκαλία, The first belonged especially to 
the presbyters or bishops who stood at the head of the organization 
for the outward government of the church. Certain it is, at least, that 
they did not all possess the gift of teaching as διδάσκαλοι, teachers. On 
the other hand, there may have been persons endowed with the gift 
of teaching, and qualified thus to be teachers, who still belonged not 
to the class of presbyters. The relations of these offices to one another 
seem not to have been the same in all stages of the development of 
the apostolical churches. 


INTRODUCTION. 19 


nature of the Christian church, as a spiritual community. 
All else is mutable. The form of the church remained not 
the same, even through the whole course of the apostolic 
age, from the first descent of the Spirit, on the day of Pen- 
tecost, to the death of John the apostle. Particular forms 
of church government may be more or less suited to the 
nature of the Christian church; and we may add, no one 
is absolutely perfect, neither are all alike good under all 
circumstances. Would then that all, in their strivings 
after forms of church government, would abide fast by 
those which they believe to be best adapted to promote 
their own spiritual edification, and which they may have 
found, by experience, to be best suited to the wants of their 
own Christian community. Only let them not seek to im- 
pose upon all Christians any one form as indispensably 
necessary. Only let them remember, that the upbuilding 
of the church of Christ may be carried on under other 
forms also; and that the same Spirit, on which the exist- 
ence of the church depends, can as truly operate in other 
churches as in their own. Would that Congregationalists, 
Presbyterians and Episcopalians, Calvinists and Lutherans, 
would abide by that only unchangeable foundation which 
Christ has laid. Would that on such a foundation, which 
no man can lay, they would meet as brethren in Christ, 
acknowledging each other as members of one catholic 
church, and organs of the same Spirit, co-operating together 
for the promotion of the great ends indicated by the apos- 
tle Paul in Eph. iv. 13-16. 

It must indeed be of great importance to examine impar- 
tially the relations of the apostolical church; for, at this 
time, the Spirit of Christ, through the apostles, wrought in 
its purest influence; by which means the mingling of foreign 


20 INTRODUCTION. 


elements was prevented in the development of this system 
of ecclesiastical polity. In this respect we must all admit 
that the apostolical church commends itself to us as a model 
of church government. But, in the first place, let us re- 
member, agreeably to what has already been said, that not 
all the forms of church government which were adapted to 
the exigencies of the church at this early period can be 
received as patterns for the church at other times; neither 
can the imitation be pressed too far. Let us remember that 
it is only that same Spirit which is imparted to us through 
the intervention of the apostles, which, at all times, and 
under all possible relations, will direct to the most appro- 
priate and most efficient form of government, if, in humility 
and sincerity, we surrender ourselves up to its teaching and 
guidance. And secondly, let us remember that, after true 
and faithful inquiry on these subjects, men may honestly 
differ in their views on those minor points, without inter- 
rupting the higher communion of faith and love. 

In the apostolical church there was one office which bears 
no resemblance to any other, and to which none can be 
made to conform. This is the office of the apostles. They 
stand as the medium of communication between Christ and 
the whole Christian church, to transmit his word and his 
Spirit through all ages. In this respect the church must 
ever continue to acknowledge her dependence upon them, 
and to own their rightful authority. Their authority and 
power can be delegated to none other. But the service 
which the apostles themselves sought to confer, was to 
transmit to men the word and the Spirit of the Lord, and, 
by this means, to establish independent Christian commu- 
nities. ‘These communities, when once established, they 
refused to hold in a state of slavish dependence upon them- 


INTRODUCTION. 21 


selves. Their object was, in the Spirit of the Lord, to make 
the churches free and independent of their guidance. To 
the churches their language was, “ Ye beloved, ye are made 
free; be ye the servants of no man.” ‘The churches were 
taught to govern themselves. All the members were made 
to co-operate together as organs of one Spirit, in connection 
with which spiritual gifts were imparted to each as he might 
need. ‘Thus they whose prerogative it was to rule among 
the brethren demeaned themselves as the servants of Christ 
and his church. They acted in the name of Christ and 
his church, as the organs of that Spirit with which all were 
inspired, and from which they derived the consciousness of 
their mutual Christian fellowship. 

The brethren chose their own officers from among them- 
selves. Or if, in the first organization of the churches, their 
officers were appointed by the apostles, it was with the ap- 
probation of the members of the same. The general con- 
cerns of the church were managed by the apostles in con- 
nection with their brethren in the church, to whom they 
also addressed their epistles. 

The earliest constitution of the church was modeled, for 
the most part, after that religious community with which 
it stood in closest connection, and to which it was most 
assimilated—the Jewish synagogue. This, however, was 
so modified as to conform to the nature of the Christian 
community, and to the new and peculiar spirit with which 
it was animated. Like the synagogue, the church was 
governed by an associated body of men appointed for this 
purpose. 

The name of presbyters, which was appropriated to this 
body, was derived from the Jewish synagogue. But in the 
Gentile churches, formed by the apostle Paul, they took 


oF INTRODUCTION. 


the name of ἐπίσχοποι, bishops, a term more significant of 
their office in the language generally spoken by the mem- 
bers of these churches. The name of presbyters denoted the 
dignity of their office. That of bishops, on the other hand, 
was expressive rather of the nature of their office, ἐπισχοπεῖν 
τὴν ἐχχλησίαν, to take the oversight of the church. Most 
certainly no other distinction originally existed between 
them. But, in process of time, some one, in the ordinary 
course of events, would gradually obtain the pre-eminence 
over his colleagues, and by reason of that peculiar oversight 
which he exercised over the whole community, might come 
to be designated by the name ἐπίσχοπος, bishop, which was 
originally applied to them all indiscriminately. The con- 
stant tumults, from within and from without, which agitated 
the church in the times of the apostles, may have given to 
such a one opportunity to exercise his influence the more 
efficiently ; so that, at such a time, the controlling influence 
of one in this capacity may have been very salutary to the 
church. This change in the relation of the presbyters to 
each other was not the same in all the churches, but varied 
according to their different circumstances. It may have 
been as early as the latter part of the life of John, when 
he was sole survivor of the other apostles, that one, as pres- 
ident of this body of presbyters, was distinguished by the 
name of ἐπέσχοπος, bishop. There is, however, no evidence 
that the apostle himself introduced this change; much less 
that he authorized it as a perpetual ordinance for the future. 
Such an ordinance is in direct opposition to the spirit of 
that apostle.® 

3 In the angels of the churches in the seven epistles of the Apoca- 


lypse, I cannot recognize the 433y poy of the Jewish synagogue 
transferred to the Christian church. The application appears to me 


INTRODUCTION. “Ὁ 


This change in the mode of administering the government 
of the church, resulting from peculiar circumstances, may 
have been introduced as a salutary expedient, without im- 
plying any departure from the purity of the Christian spirit. 
When, however, the doctrine is—as it gradually gained 
currency in the third century—that the bishops are, by 
_ divine right, the head of the church, and invested with the 
government of the same; that they are the successors of 
the apostles, and by this succession inherit apostolical au- 
thority ; that they are the medium through which, in con- 
sequence of that ordination which they have received, 
merely in an outward manner, the Holy Ghost, in all time 
to come, must be transmitted to the church—when this be- 
comes the doctrine of the church, we certainly must per- 
ceive, in these assumptions, a strong corruption of the purity 
of the Christian system. It is a carnal perversion of the 
true idea of the Christian church. It is falling back into 
the spirit of the Jewish religion. Instead of the Christian 
idea of a church, based on inward principles of communion, 
and extending itself by means of these, it presents us with 
the image of one, like that under the Old Testament, rest- 


to be altogether arbitrary. Nor again can 1 discover in the angel of 
the church, the bishop, addressed as the representative of this body 
of believers. How much must we assume as already proved, which 
yet is entirely without evidence, in assigning to this early period the 
rise of such a monarchical system of government, that the bishop alone 
can be put in the place of the whole church? In this phraseology I 
recognize rather a symbolical application of the idea of guardian an- 
gels, similar to that of the Ferver of the Parsees, as a symbolical rep- 
resentation and image of the whole church. Such a figurative repre- 
sentation corresponds well with the poetical and symbolical character 
of the book throughout. It is also expressly said that the address is 
to the whole body of the churches. 


924 INTRODUCTION. 


ing in outward ordinances, and, by external rites, seeking 
to promote the propagation of the kingdom of God. This 
entire perversion of the original view of the Christian 
church was itself the origin of the whole system of the Ro- 
man Catholic religion,—the germ from which sprung the 
popery of the dark ages. 

We hold, indeed, no controversy with that class of Epis- 
copalians who adhere to the episcopal system above men- 
tioned as well adapted, in their opinion, to the exigencies 
of their church. We would live in harmony with them, 
notwithstanding their mistaken views of the true form of 
the church, provided they denounce not other systems of 
church government. But the doctrine of the absolute ne- 
cessity of the episcopal as the only valid form of govern- 
ment, and of the episcopal succession of bishops above 
mentioned, in order to a participation in the gifts of the 
Spirit, all this we must regard as something foreign to the 
true idea of the Christian church. It is in direct conflict 
with the spirit of protestantism; and is the origin, not of 
the true catholicism of the apostle, but of that of the Rom- 
ish church. When, therefore, Episcopalians disown, as 
essentially deficient in their ecclesiastical organization, 
other protestant churches which evidently have the Spirit 
of Christ, it only remains for us to protest, in the strongest 
terms, against their setting up such a standard of perfection 
for the Christian church. Far be it from us, who began 
with Luther in the spirit, that we should now desire to be 
made perfect by the flesh, Gal. 111. 3. 


Dr. A. NEANDER. 
BERLIN, April 28, 1843. 


THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


Pair Ἐ Ι ΓΙΒῈΣ: 


POPULAR IN ITS GOVERNMENT. 


CHALE VERE 
PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 


THe Christian church derived its earliest form from a 
small society of believers, who were united together by no 
law but that of the love which they felt to one another and 
to their common Lord.' After his ascension they continued 
to meet, in singleness of heart, for the mutual interchange 
of sympathy and love, and for the worship of their Lord 
and Master. The government which, in process of time, 
the fraternity adopted for themselves, was free and volun- 
tary. Each individual church possessed the rights and 
powers inherent in an independent popular assembly ; or, 
to adopt the language of another, ‘The right to enact their 
laws, and the entire government of the church, was vested 
in each individual association of which the church was com- 
posed, and was exercised by the members of the same, in 

1 Neander’s Apost. Kirch. Vol. I.c.1. Rothe, Anfiinge der Christ. 


Kirch. I. S. 141-2. 
3 B 25 


26 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


connection with their overseers and teachers, and, when the 
apostles were present, in common also with them.’” This 
general exposition of the government of the primitive 
church, it will be our business to illustrate and defend in 
the following pages. The course of our inquiries will lead 
us to examine the popular government of the apostolical 
and primitive church, to trace the gradual extinction of 
this form of government, and the rise of the episcopal sys- 
tem; and also to consider the simplicity of primitive wor- 
ship in its several parts. 

The arguments for the popular government of the apos- 
tolical and primitive church may be arranged under the 
following heads: 


1. It harmonizes with the primitive simplicity of all 
forms of government. 

The multiplication of offices, the adjustment of the gra- 
dations of rank and power, and ἃ» complicated system of 
rites and forms, are the work of time. At first, the rules 
of government, however administered, are few and simple. 
The early Christians, especially, associating together in the 
confidence of mutual love, and uniting in sincerity of heart 
for the worship of God, could have had only a few conven- 
tional rules for the regulation of their fraternity. 


2. It is, perhaps, the only organization which the church 
could safely have formed, at that time, under the Roman 
government. 

The Romans tolerated, indeed, different religious sects, 
and might have extended the same indulgence to the primi- 
tive Christians. But they looked with suspicion upon every 
organization of party or sect, and punished with cruel jeal- 


3 Cited in Allgemeine Kirch. Zeitung, 1833. No. 103. 


PRELIMINARY REMARKS. eit 


ousy every indication of a confederacy within the empire. 
The charge of treasonable intentions prevailed with the 
Roman governor against our Lord. And under Trajan, 
A. D. 103, a bloody persecution was commenced against 
the church, on the suspicion that it might be a secret so- 
ciety, formed for seditious purposes. Under these cireum- 
stances, it is difficult to conceive how a diocesan consolida- 
tion of the churches could have been established by the 
apostles without bringing down upon them the vengeance 
of the Roman government. Their harmless and informal 
assemblies, and the total absence of all connection one with 
another, was, according to Planck, the means of saving the 
early churches so long and so extensively from the exter- 
minating sword of Roman jealousy.’ 


Crevit occulto, velut arbor, aevo. 


5. Such an organization must have been formed to unite 
the discordant parties in the primitive churches. 

Here was the Jew, the Greek, the Roman, and Barba- 
rians of every form of superstition; converts, indeed, to faith 
in Christ, but with all their partialities and prejudices still. 
What but a voluntary principle, guaranteeing to all the 
freedom of a popular assembly, could unite these parties in 
one fraternity? Our Lord himself employed no artificial 
bands to bind his followers together into a permanent body ; 
and they were alienated from him upon the slightest offence. 
The apostles had still less to bind their adherents firmly to 
themselves. It required all their wisdom and address to 
reconcile the discordant prejudices of their converts and 
unite them in harmonious fellowship one with another. 
This difficulty met the apostles at the outset of their minis- 
try, in the murmuring of the Greeks against the Jews, that 


3 Gesellschafts-Verfass, I. S. 40-50. 


28 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. This 
mutual jealousy was a continual trial besetting them on 
every side. Under such circumstances, they assumed not 
the responsibility of settling these controversies by apostol- 
ical or episcopal authority. Everything relating to the 
interests of each church they left to be publicly discussed 
and decided by mutual consent. In this manner they 
quieted these complaints of the Greeks respecting the dis- 
tribution of alms, Acts vi. 1-8. And such, of necessity, 
became their settled policy in their care of the churches. 
Even the apostles were not exempt from these infirmities 
and misunderstandings, and might have found no small 
difficulty in arranging among themselves a more artificial 
and complicated system of church government.* 


4. The same is inferred from the existence of popular 
rights and privileges in the early periods of the Christian 
church. 

Had the doctrine of the rights of the people been totally 
lost in the second and third centuries, this would by no 
means warrant the inference that such rights were unknown 
in the days of the apostles. They all might have been 
swept away by the irresistible tide of clerical influence and 
authority. But they were not lost. They were asserted 
even in the fourth and fifth centuries, and long after the 
hierarchy was established in connection with the state, and 
its authority enforced by imperial power. 


5. A popular form of church government harmonizes 
with the spirit, the instructions and the example of Christ. 


4 Schroeter und Klein, Fiir Christenthum Oppositionsschrift, I. S. 
567. Siegel, Handbuch, II. 455-6. Arnold, Wahre-Abbildung der 
Ersten Christen, B. II. c. 5, seq. Schoene, Geschichtsforschungen d. 
Kirch. Gebriiuch, I. S. 234-5. 


PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 29 


(a) With his spirit. He was of a meek and lowly spirit 
unostentatious and unassuming. He shrank from the de- 
monstrations of power, and refused the titles and honors 
that, at times, were pressed upon his acceptance. With 
such a spirit, that religious system must be congenial which, 
without any parade of titles and of rank, has few offices, 
and little to excite the pride or tempt the ambition of man. 

(b) With his instructions. Ye know that the princes of 
the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that 
are great exercise authority upon them, but it shall not be 
so among you; but whosoever will be great among you, let 
him be your minister; and whosoever will be chief among 
you, let him be your servant; even as the Son of man came, 
not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his 
life a ransom for many, Matt. xx. 25-28; Comp. Mark x. 
42-45. - 

(6) With his example. This was in perfect coincidence 
with his instructions, and a striking illustration of his spirit. 
His life was a pattern of humility, of untiring, unostenta- 
tious benevolence. He condescended to the condition of 
all; and, as one of the latest and most expressive acts of 
his life, washed his disciples’ feet, giving them an example 
for their imitation, as the servants of all men. Has such a 
spirit its just expression in a hierarchy, which has often dis- 
honored the religion of Christ by the display of princely 
pomp and the assumption of regal and imperial power ὃ ἢ 


6. It equally accords with the spirit, the instructions and 
the example of the apostles. 

(a) With their spirit. They had renounced their hopes 
of aggrandizement in the kingdom of Christ, and had im- 


5 The French infidels have an expression relating to our Saviour, 
which, though impious and profane, clearly indicates the nature of 
his instructions and example: “ Jesus Christ, the great Democrat.” 


3% 


30 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


bibed much of his spirit. The world took knowledge of 
them that they had been with Jesus, and had learned of 
him, who was meek and lowly of heart. This spirit must 
be foreign from the distinctions of rank and of office, as 
well as from the authority and power which are inherent 
in every form of the episcopal system. 

(b) With their instructions. These were in coincidence 
with those of their Master. They disowned personal au- 
thority over the church; and instructed the elders not to 
lord it over God’s heritage, but to be examples to the flock, 
1 Pet. v. 3. If, in the discharge of his ministry, one has 
occasion to reprove sin in an elder, this he is charged, be- 
fore God and the elect angels, to do with all circumspection, 
without prejudice or partiality, 1 Tim. v. 21. 

(c) With their example. This is the best comment upon 
their instructions, and the clearest indication of that organ- 
ization which the church received at their hands. They 
exercised, indeed, a controlling influence over the several 
churches which they established, as an American mission- 
ary does in organizing his Christian converts into a church, 
while he constitutes them a popular assembly under a Con- 
gregational or Presbyterian form. In like manner, it is 
observable that the apostles studiously declined the exercise 
of prelatical or episcopal authority.° The control which 
they at first exercised in the management of the affairs of 
the church was no part of their office. It was only a tem- 
porary expedient, resulting from the necessity of the case. 
In support of this position we offer the following con- 
siderations : 

6 Planck, Gesellschafts-Verfass, 1.S. 39. Spittler, Can. Recht, e¢. 1. 
ἢ 3. Pertsch, Can. Recht, c. 1. 4 5-8. Siegel, Kirchliche Verfas- 


sungsformen, in Handbuch, II. 5. 455. Pertsch, Kirch. Hist. 1. 8S. 
156-170, 362-370. 


ΕῚ 
PRELIMINARY REMARKS. on 


(4) They addressed the members of the church as brethren 
and sisters and fellow-laborers. I would not have you igno- 
rant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, 
Rom. i. 13; Comp. 1 Cor. ii. 1;.Rom. xvi.1. The same 
familiar, affectionate style of address runs through all the 
epistles, showing in what consideration the apostles held all 
the members of the church. “ The apostles severally were 
very far from placing themselves in a relation that bore 
any analogy to a mediating priesthood. In this respect 
they always placed themselves on a footing of equality. If 
Paul assured them of his intercessory prayers for them, he 
in return requested their prayers for himself.” ’ 

~ (6) The apostles remonstrated with the members of the 
church as with brethren, instead of rebuking them authori- 
tatively. Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and 
that there be no divisions among you, 1 Cor. i. 10; Comp. 
1 Thess. iv. 1; James 11. 1. They spoke not by command- 
ment, but in the language of mutual counselors, 1 Cor. xi. 
13-16. 

(7) They treated with the church as an independent body, 
competent to judge and act for itself. They appealed to 
the judgment of their brethren personally, 1 Cor. xi. 13-16; 
1 Thess. v. 21. They reported their own doings to the 
church, as if amenable to that body, Acts xi. 1-18; xiv. 
26, 27. 

(0) They exhorted the churches to deeds of charity and 
benevolence; but submitted to each individual the disposal 
of his goods and his charities, Acts v. 4; x1. 29, 30, ete. ; 
1 Cor. xvi. 1, seq.; 2 Cor. ix. 1, seq. 

(¢) They addressed their epistles not to the pastors of the 

7 Neander, Apostol. Kirch., I. p. 161, 3d edit.; and in the sequel 


much more to the same effect. Trans. I. 150. 
8 Comp. Socrates, Hist. Eecl. Lib. 4. ¢. 22. 


oe THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


churches, but to the churches, or to the churches and pas- 
tors, collectively, giving precedence, in some instances, to 
the church, Phil. i. 1. Even the epistles which treat of 
controverted ecclesiastical matters are addressed not to the 
bishops and presbyters, but to the whole body of believers, 
indicating that the decision belonged to them. 

(£) They recognized the right of the churches to send out 
their own religious teachers and messengers, as they might 
have occasion, Acts xi. 19-24; xv. 82, 38; 2 Cor. viii. 23; 
Phil. ii. 25; 1 Cor. xvi. 8,4. These deputations, and the 
power of sending them, indicate the independent authority 
of the churches. 

(,) They united with the church in mutual consultation 
upon doubtful questions. The brethren took part in the 
dissension with Peter, for having preached unto the Gen- 
tiles, Acts xi. 1-18. The apostles united with them in the 
discussion of the question which was submitted to them by 
the delegation from Antioch, and the result was published 
in the name of the apostles and the brethren, jointly, Acts 
sey... ἢ θη, 

(5) They submitted to the church the settlement of their 
own difficulties. The appointment of the seven deacons, to 
obviate the murmurs of the Greeks, was made at the sug- 
gestion of the apostles, but the election was wholly the act 
of the church, Acts vi. 1-6. The apostles refused any 
authoritative arbitration in the case; and required the 
churches to choose arbitrators among themselves to settle 
their own litigations, 1 Cor. xi. 1, seq. 

(©) They entrusted the church with the important right 
of electing its own officers.’ As in the case of the seven 


9 Clement of Rome, Ep. ad Cor., A. Ὁ. 98, 2 44, states it as a rule 
received from the apostles, that the appointment of church officers 
should be with the consent of the whole church, συνευδοκησάσης τῆς 
ἐκκλησίας πάσης. 


PRELIMINARY REMARKS. oD 


deacons, which we have just stated, the apostles refused 
even the responsibility of supplying, in their own number, 
the place of the traitor Judas, but submitted the choice to 
the assembly of the disciples, Acts i. 15, seq. In this con- 
nection should the appointment of elders, Acts xiv. 23, also 
be mentioned, as may hereafter appear. 

(x) The apostles submitted to the church the discipline 
of its members; as in the case of the incestuous person, who 
was excommunicated and afterward restored to the church 
by that body. “The relation of presbyters to the church 
was not that of rulers with monarchical powers, but of the 
officers of an ecclesiastical republic. In all things they 
were to act in connection with the church, and to perform 
their duties as the servants, and not the lords of the church. 
The apostles recognized the same relation. The apostle 
Paul, when speaking of the excommunication of the incest- 
uous person at Corinth, regards himself as united in spirit 
with the whole church, 1 Cor. v. 4, thus indicating the prin- 
ciple that their co-operation was required in all such cases 
of general interest.” ”° 

The churches, therefore, which were planted by the apos- 
tles, were under their sanction organized as independent 
popular assemblies, with power to elect officers, adopt rules, 
administer discipline, and to do all those acts which belong 
to such deliberative bodies. 


7. The popular government of the primitive church is 
apparent from its analogy to the Jewish synagogue. 

This and each of the following articles, under this head, 
will be the subjects of consideration in another place. They 
are assumed as so many separate heads of argumentation, 
so far as they may appear to be founded in truth. Comp. 
Chap. IT. 

10 Neander, Allgem. Gesch., I. 8S. 324, 2d ed. Tr. I. p, 190. 
Β 


5: a THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


8. The primitive churches were, severally, independent 
bodies, in Christian fellowship, but having no confederate 
relations one toward another. 

“The power of enacting laws, of appointing teachers and 
ministers, and of determining controversies, was lodged in 
the people at large; nor did the apostles, though invested 
with divine authority, either resolve or sanction anything 
whatever without the knowledge and concurrence of the 
general body of Christians of which the church was com- 


posed.” * Comp. Chap. III. 


9. These churches severally enjoyed the inherent right 
of every independent body—that of choosing their own 
officers. Comp. Chap. IV. 


10. In the apostolical and primitive churches the right 
of discipline was vested not in the clergy, but in each church 
collectively.” 

Even the officers of the church were subject to the au- 
thority of the same. Clement recognizes this authority in 
his epistles to the Corinthians.* Comp. Chap. V. 


11. The appropriate officers of the church were deacons 


11 De Rebus Christ., etc., 2 1, 37. To the same effect, also, is the 
authority of Neander, Apost. Kirch. pp. 1, 161, 201, 214, 3d ed. 

12 Primo omnibus ecclesiae membris jus eligendi pastores et diaconos 
erat. Communicatio erat quaedam inter varios coetus christianos vel 
ecclesias; literae quas altera acceperat alteri legendae mittebantur. 
Pecunias ad pauperes sublevandos ecclesia ecclesiae donabat. De re- 
bus fidei et disciplinae jam apostoli deliberaverunt. Quaequae eccle- 
sia exercebat jus excommunicandi eos qui doctrinae et vitae christianae 
renunciaverant, eosque recipiendi quorum poenitentia et mentis muta- 
tio constabat. Sic prima christianorum ecclesia libertate, concordia, 
sanctitate floruit. Sack Comment, ad Theol. Inst., p. 141. 

13 Epist. 3 54, comp. 44. Also Pertsch, Kirch. Hist. I. 362. 


PRELIMINARY REMARKS. on 


and pastors. These pastors were denominated indiscrimi- 
nately bishops, overseers, and elders, presbyters, and were at 


first identical.* Comp. Chap. VI. 


Greiling, after going through with an examination of the 
government of the apostolical churches, gives the following 
summary: “In the age of the apostles there was no primate 
of the churches, but the entire-equality of brethren pre- 
vailed. The apostles themselves exercised no kind of au- 
thority or power over the churches, but styled themselves 
their helpers and servants. The settlement of controverted 
points, the adoption of new rites, the discipline of the church, 
the election of presbyters, and even the choice of an apostle, 
were submitted to the church. The principle on which the 
apostles proceeded was, that the church, that is, the elders 
and the members of the church unitedly, were the deposit- 
aries of all their social rights; that no others could exercise 
this right but those to whom the church might entrust it, 
and who were accordingly amenable to the church. Even 
the apostles, though next to Christ himself, invested with 
the highest authority, assumed no superiority over the pres- 
byters, but treated them as brethren, and styled themselves 
fellow-presbyters, thus recognizing them as associates in 
office.” * 

Finally, the worship of the primitive churches was re- 
markable for its freedom and simplicity. Their religious 
rites were few and simple, and restrained by no complicated 
ritual or prescribed ceremonials. This point is considered 
at length in a subsequent part of the work. 

The government throughout was wholly popular. Every 
church adopted its own regulations and enacted its own 
laws. These laws were administered by officers elected by 


14 Neander, Apost. Kirch. I. p. 1, 184. Tr. I. p. 168. 
16. Apostol. Christengemeine. Halberstadt, 1819. 


36 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


the church. No church was dependent upon another. 
They were represented in synod by their own delegates. 
Their discipline was administered not by the clergy, but by 
the people or the church collectively. And even after or- 
dination became the exclusive right of the bishop, no one 
was permitted to preach to any congregation who was not 
approved and duly accepted by the congregation. All 
their religious worship was conducted on the same princi- 
ples of freedom and equality. 

Such was the organization of the Christian church in its 
primitive simplicity and purity. The national peculiarities 
of the Jewish and Gentile converts in some degree modified 
individual churches, but the form of government was sub- 
stantially the same in all. We claim not for it authority 
absolutely imperative and divine, to the exclusion of every 
other system; but it has, we must believe, enough of pre- 
cept, of precedent and of principle, to give it a sanction 
truly apostolic. Its advantages and practical results justly 
claim an attentive consideration. 


CHAPTER? IL. 


THE PRIMITIVE CHURCHES FORMED AFTER THE 
MODEL OF THE JEWISH SYNAGOGUE. 


THE apostles and the first disciples were Jews, who, after 
their conversion, retained the prejudices and partialities of 
their nation. They observed still all the rites of their re- 
ligion; and, firmly believing that salvation by Christ be- 
longed only to the circumcision, they refused the ministry 
of reconciliation to the Gentiles. All their national pecu- 
harities led them to conform the Christian to the Jewish 
church. 

With the temple-service and the Mosaic ritual, however, 
Christianity had no affinity. The sacrificial offerings of the 
temple and the Levitical priesthood it abolished. But in 
the synagogue-worship the followers of Christ found a more | 
congenial institution. It invited them to the reading of the 
Scriptures and to prayer. It gave them liberty of speech 
in exhortation and in worshiping and praising God. The 
rules and government of the synagogue, while they offered 
little, comparatively, to excite the pride of office and of 
power, commended themselves the more to the humble be- 
liever in Christ. The synagogue was endeared to the devout 
Jew by sacred associations and tender recollections. It was 
near at hand, and not, like the temple, afar off. He went 
but seldom up to Jerusalem, and only on great occasions 
joined in the rites of temple-service. But in the synagogue 

4 37 


38 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


he paid his constant devotions to the God of his fathers. 
It met his eye in every place. It was constantly before 
him, and from infancy to hoary age he was accustomed to 
repair to that hallowed place of worship, to listen to the 
reading of his sacred books, to pray and sing praises unto 
the God of Israel. The reading of the Scriptures was fol- 
lowed with familiar remarks, and exhortations upon the 
portion read, by priests, elders, scribes, and intelligent 
members of the assembly, or strangers in attendance. 
Thus our Lord habitually taught in the synagogues as he 
journeyed from place to place, Luke iy. 15, 44; Matt. iv. 
28; ix. 85; John xviii. 20.’ 

In accordance with this usage, the apostles also continued 
to frequent the synagogues of the Jews. Wherever they 
went they resorted to these places of worship, and strove to 
convert their brethren to faith in Christ, not as a new re- 
ligion, but as a modification of their own. The freedom of 
synagogue-worship accorded to them everywhere a hearing. 
“Men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for 
the people, say on,” Acts xiii. 15. Thus, at Salamis, xiii. 
δ; at Iconium, xiv. 1; at Berea, xvii. 10; at Ephesus, xviii 
19, they reasoned in the synagogues with the Jews, preach- 
ing the gospel of Christ. 

In their own religious assemblies they also conformed, as 
far as was consistent with the spirit of the Christian religion, 
to the same rites, and gradually settled upon a church- 
organization which harmonized in a remarkable manner 
with that of the Jewish synagogue. They even retained 
the same name as the appellation of their Christian assem- 
blies. “If there come into your assembly, cvvaywy74y—if 
there come into your synagogue—a man with a gold ring,” 
etc, James ii. 2. Compare also ἐπισυναγωγήν, Heb. x. 25. 


1 Comp., also Philo., IT. 458, 630, cited in Hertzog’s Eneyclop. 15, 
311. 


MODEL OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCHES. 39 


Their modes of worship were substantially the same as those 
of the synagogue. The titles of their officers they also bor- 
rowed from the same source. The titles bishop, pastor, 
presbyter, etc., were familiar to them as synonymous terms 
denoting the same class of officers in the synagogue. Their 
duties and prerogatives remained in substance the same in 
the Christian church as in that of the Jews. 

So great was this similarity between the primitive Chris- 
tian churches and the Jewish synagogues that by the Pa- 
gan nations they were mistaken for the same institutions. 
Pagan historians uniformly treated the primitive Christians 
as Jews.” As such they suffered under the persecutions of 
their idolatrous rulers. These, and many other particulars 
that might be mentioned, are sufficient to show that the 
ecclesiastical polity of the Jewish synagogue was very 
closely copied by the apostles and primitive Christians in 
the organization of their assemblies. 

In support of the foregoing statements, authorities to any 
extent and of the highest character might easily be adduced. 
Let the following, however, suffice, from Neander: “The 
disciples had not yet attained a clear understanding of that 
eall, which Christ had already given them by so many in- 
timations, to form a church entirely separated from the ex- 
isting Jewish economy; to that economy they adhered as 
much as possible; all the forms of the national theocracy 
were sacred in their esteem; it seemed the natural element 
of their religious consciousness, though a higher principle 
of life had been imparted, by which that consciousness was 
to be progressively inspired and transformed. As the be- 
lievers, In opposition to the mass of the Jewish nation who 
remained hardened in their unbelief, now formed a com- 
munity internally bound together by the one faith in Jesus 


2 Vitringa, De Synagog. Vet., Prolegom. pp. 3, 4. 


40 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


as the Messiah, and by the consciousness of the higher life 
received from him, it was necessary that this internal union 
should assume a certain external form. And a model for 
such a smaller community within the great national theoc- 
racy already existed among the Jews, along with the temple 
worship, namely, the synagogues. The means of religious 
edification which they supplied took account of the religious 
welfare of all, and consisted of united prayers and the ad- 
dresses of individuals who applied themselves to the study 
of the Old Testament. These means of edification closely 
corresponded to the nature of the new Christian worship. 
This form of social worship, as it was copied in all the re- 
ligious communities founded on Judaism (such as the Es- 
senes), was also adopted, to a certain extent, at the first 
formation of the Christian church. But it may be disputed 
whether the apostles, to whom Christ committed the chief 
direction of affairs, designed from the first that believers 
should form a society exactly on the model of the syna- 
gogue, and, in pursuance of this plan, instituted particular 
offices for the government of the church corresponding to 
that model; or whether, without such a preconceived plan, 
distinct offices were appointed, as circumstances required, 
in doing which they would avail themselves of the model of 
the synagogue with which they were familiar.”* “We are 
disposed to believe that the church was at first composed 
entirely of members standing on an equality with one another, 
and that the apostles alone held a higher rank, and exer- 
cised a directing influence over the whole, which arose from 
the original position in which Christ had placed them in 
relation to other believers; so that the whole arrangement 
and administration of the affairs of the church proceeded 
from them, and they were first induced by particular cir- 


3 Apost. Kirch. 3d edit. p. 31. Trans. I. 33. Comp. 179, 198. 


MODEL OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCHES. 41 


cumstances to appoint other church officers, as in the in- 
stance of deacons.” * To the same effect is also Neander’s 
account of this subject in his Church History, where he 
shows that this organization of Christian churches was the 
most natural under existing circumstances, and the most 
acceptable not only to Jewish converts, but to those who 
were gathered from the subjects of the Roman government.’ 
If the reader require other authority on this subject, he has 
only to examine Vitringa, De Synagoga Vetere, especially 
his third book, to say nothing of Selden, Lightfoot and 
many others. Vitringa himself has fully sustained the 
bold title which he gives to his immortal work: “ Three 
books on the ancient Synagogue; in which it is demon- 
strated that the form of government and of the ministry in 
the synagogue was transferred to the Christian church.” 
These views are fully avowed by Archbishop Whately 
with his usual independence and candor. ‘It is probable 
that one cause, humanly speaking, why we find in the Sa- 
ered Books less information concerning the Christian min- 
istry and the constitution of church-governments than we 
otherwise might have found, is that these institutions had 
less of novelly than some would at first sight suppose, and 
that many portions of them did not wholly originate with 
the apostles. It appears highly probable—I might say, 
morally certain—that, wherever a Jewish synagogue ex- 
isted, that was brought—the whole, or the chief part of it— 
to embrace the gospel, the apostles did not, there, so much 
form a Christian church (or congregation,* ecclesia), as 


4P. 33. Comp. 195, seq. So, also, Rothe, Anfiinge, S. 146-148. 

5 Kirchen. Gesch. 1. S. 183-185. Trans. 184. 

* The word “ congregation,’ as it stands in our version of the Old 
Testament (and it is one of very frequent occurrence in the Books of 
Moses), is found to correspond, in the Septuagint, which was familiar 
to the New Testament writers, to ecclesia ; the word which, in our ver- 

4 4% 


42 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


make an existing congregation Christian; by introducing 
the Christian sacraments and worship, and establishing 
whatever regulations were requisite for the newly-adopted 
faith ; leaving the machinery (if I may so speak) of gov- 
ernment unchanged; the “rulers of synagogues, elders and 
other officers (whether spiritual or ecclesiastical, or both) 
being already provided in the existing institutions. And 
it is likely that several of the earliest Christian churches 
did originate in this way; that is, that they were converted 
synagogues; which became Christian churches as soon as the 
members, or the main part of the members, acknowledged 
Jesus as the Messiah. 

“The attempt to effect this conversion of a Jewish syna- 
gogue into a Christian church seems always to have been 
made, in the first instance, in every place where there was 
an opening for it. Even after the call of the idolatrous 
Gentiles, it appears plainly to have been the practice of the 
apostles Paul and Barnabas, when they came to any city 
in which there was a synagogue, to go thither first and de- 
liver their sacred message to the Jews and ‘devout (or pros- 
elyte) Gentiles ;’ according to their own expression (Acts 
xiii. 17), to the ‘men of Israel and those that feared God?’ 
adding, that ‘it was necessary that the word of God should 
first be preached to them.’ And when they founded a 
church in any of those cities in which (and such were, 
probably, a very large majority) there was no Jewish syna- 
gogue that received the gospel, it is likely they would still 
conform, in a great measure, to the same model.” ° 

“A Jewish synagogue or a collection of synagogues in 
the same neighborhood became at once a Christian church 


sion of these last, is always rendered not “congregation,”’ but “church.” 


This, or its equivalent, “kirk,” is probably no other than “circle ;” 
i. e., assembly, ecclesia. 


6 Kingdom of Christ, pp. 83-85. 


MODEL OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCHES. 43 


as soon as the worshipers or a considerable portion of them 
had embraced the gospel and had separated themselves 
from unbelievers.” 

It is an admitted fact, as clearly settled as anything can 
be by human authority, that the primitive Christians, in 
the organization of their assemblies, formed them after the 
model of the Jewish synagogue. They discarded the splen- 
did ceremonials of the temple-service, and retained the sim- 
ple rites of the synagogue-worship. They disowned the 
hereditary aristocracy of the Levitical priesthood,’ and 
adopted the popular government of the synagogue.° 

We are here presented with an important fact in the or- 
ganization of the primitive churches strongly illustrative of 
the popular character of their constitution and government. 
The synagogue was essentially a popular assembly, invested 
with the rights and possessing the powers which are essen- 
tial to the enjoyment of religious liberty. Their govern- 
ment was voluntary, elective, free, and administered by 
rulers or elders elected by the people. The ruler of the 
synagogue was the moderator of the college of elders, but 
only primus inter pares, holding no official rank above 
them.” The people, as Vitringa has shown,” appointed 


7 Whately’s Hist. of Relig. Worship, p. 114. 

8 The prelatical reference of the Christian ministry to the Levitical 
priesthood is a device of a later age, though it has been common from 
the time of Cyprian down to the present time. 

® Totum regimen ecclesiasticum conformatum fuit ad synagogarum 
exemplar. Hugo Grotius, Comment. ad Act. xi. 30. 

10 Vitringa, De Vet. Syn. L. 3. c. 16. 

11 Comp. Vitringa, De Synagoga, Lib. 3. P. 1. ¢. 15, pp. 828-863. 
Nihil actum absque ecclesia, [7. e., the synagogue] quae in publico 
consulta est, et quidem hac ipsa for en pyop yam sive ἄξιος quam 
in yertere ecclesia in eligendis episcopis adhibitam meminimus, 7). 
829. In vita Josephi, . .. publica omnia ibi tractari videmus in syna- 
gogis, consulto populo, p. 832. 


44 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


their own officers to rule over them. They exercised the 
natural right of freemen to enact and execute their own 
laws, to admit proselytes, and to exclude, at pleasure, un- 
worthy members from their communion. Theirs was “a 
democratical form of government,” and is so described by one 
of the most able expounders of the constitution of the primi- 
tive churches.” Like their prototype, therefore, the prim1- 
tive churches also embodied the principle of a popular goy- 
ernment and of enlightened religious liberty. 

Before the Babylonish captivity, the Jews were perpetu- 
ally falling away into the prevailing idolatries of the age. 
The imposing ritual of the temple service failed to hold 
them fast in their allegiance to God. After their return 
from this captivity, synagogue worship was introduced, 
and, in time, became universal. In the age of Christ there 
were four hundred and sixty or four hundred and eighty 
synagogues in Jerusalem, and in like proportion in other 
cities. Here the Scriptures, divided into fifty-two lessons, 
were read every Sabbath day, so that the reading of the 
entire roll was completed every year. And by this reading 
of God’s Word the Jews have held fast, with remarkable 
tenacity, the faith of their fathers; so that only by a mira- 
cle of sovereign grace is one of them converted to faith in 
Christ. Such is the power of divine truth to maintain the 
doctrines of our religion. The power of this truth, as pre- 
sented in the synagogues of the Jews above the ceremonials 
of the Mosaic ritual, in maintaining the steadfastness of 
their faith, is worthy of profound consideration. It illus- 
trates the inefficacy of ritualistic forms to defend the faith 
once delivered to the saints. 

22 Rothe, Anfiinge der Christ. Kirch., 8. 14. 


CHAPTER. ΤΙ, 
INDEPENDENCE OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCHES. 


Tue churches which were established by the apostles and 
their disciples exhibit a remarkable example of unanimity. 
One in faith and the fellowship of love, they were united 
in spirit as different members of one body, or as brethren 
of the same family.’ This union and fellowship of spirit 
the apostles carefully promoted among all the churches. 
But they instituted no external form of union or confedera- 
tion between those of different towns or provinces; nor, 
within the first century of the Christian era, can any trace 
of such a confederacy, whether diocesan or conventional, 
be detected on the page of history. Wherever converts to 
Christianity were multiplied they formed themselves into a 
church, under the guidance of their religious teachers, for 
the enjoyment of Christian ordinances. But each individual 
church constituted an independent and separate community. 
The society was purely voluntary, and every church so con- 
stituted was strictly independent of all others in the conduct 
of its worship, the admission of its members, the exercise 
of its discipline, the choice of its officers and the entire man- 
agement of its affairs. They were independent republics. 
“ Each individual church which had a bishop or presbyter 
of its own assumed to itself the form and rights of a little 
distinct republic or commonwealth; and with regard to its 
internal concerns was wholly regulated by a code of laws 

41 Cor. xii. 12, 13; Eph. ii. 20; iv. 3. 
45 


406 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


that, if they did not originate with, had at least received 
the sanction of the people constituting such church.” ἢ 

Particular neighboring churches may for various reasons 
have sustained peculiar fraternal relations to each other. 
Local and other circumstances may, in time, have given 
rise to correspondence between churches more remote, or 
to mutual consultations by letter and by delegates, as in 
the instance of the churches at Antioch and Jerusalem, 
Acts xv., and of Corinth and Rome;* but no established 
jurisdiction was exercised by one over the other. The 
church at Jerusalem, with the apostles and elders, addressed 
the church at Antioch, not in the language of authority, 
but of advice. Nor does ancient history, sacred or profane, 
relating to this early period, record an instance in which 
one church presumed to impose laws of its own upon another. 

“On the contrary, several things occur therein which put 
it out of all doubt that every one of them enjoyed the same 
rights, and was considered as being on a footing of the most 
perfect equality with the rest. Indeed it cannot, I will not 
say be proved, but even be made to appear probable, from 
testimony human or divine, that in this age it was the prac- 
tice for several churches to enter into and maintain among 
themselves that sort of association which afterward came to 
subsist among the churches of almost every province. I 
allude to their assembling by their bishops, at stated peri- 
ods, for the purpose of enacting general laws and determin- 
ing any questions or controversies that might arise respect- 
ing divine matters. It is not until the second century that 
any traces of that sort of association from whence councils 
took their origin are to be perceived.” * 

2 Mosheim, De Rebus Christ., Saec. 11. 3 22, Comp. Neander, All- 
gemein. Gesch., I. 291, 2. Trans. p. 184. 


3 See Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians. 
4 De Rebus Christ., Saec. I. ¢ 48. 


INDEPENDENCE OF THE CHURCHES. 47 


Indications of this original independence are distinctly 
manifest even after the rise of episcopacy. Every bishop 
had the right to form his own liturgy and creed, and to set- 
tle at pleasure his own time and mode of celebrating the 
religious festivals.’ Cyprian strongly asserts the right of 
every bishop to make laws for his own church. Socrates 
assigns this original independence of the bishops as the prin- 
cipal cause of the endless controversies in the church re- 
specting the observance of Easter and other festivals.° 

But we need not enlarge. Nothing in the history of the 
primitive churches is more incontrovertible than the fact of 
their absolute independence one of another. It is attested 
by the highest historical authorities, and appears to be gen- 
erally conceded by episcopal authors themselves. “ At 
first,” says the learned Dr. Barrow, “every church was 
settled apart under its own bishop and presbyters, so as 
independently and separately to manage its own concerns. 
Each was governed by its own head and had its own laws.’’’ 

“The apostles or their representatives exercised a general 
superintendence over the churches by divine authority, at- 
tested by miraculous gifts. The subordinate government 
of each particular church was vested in itself; that is to 
say, the whole body elected its ministers and officers, and 
was consulted concerning all matters of importance. All 
churches were independent of each other, but were united 
by the bonds of holy charity, sympathy and friendship.” * 

Similar views are also expressed by Archbishop Whately: 
“Though there was one Lord, one faith, one baptism, for 
all of these, yet they were each a distinct, independent com- 


5 Greiling, Apostol. Christengemeine, ὃ. 16. 

6 Eccles. Hist. Lib. 5, α. 22. % 

7 Treatise on Pope’s Supremacy, Works, Vol. I. p. 662. Comp. 
King’s Prim. Christ. c. 12, p. 14, also 136.. 

§ Riddle’s Chronology, Beginning of Second Century. 


48 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


munity on earth, united by the common principles on which 
they were founded by their mutual agreement, affection and 
respect ; but not having any one recognized head on earth, 
or acknowledging any sovereignty of one of those societies 
over others.”® ‘The apostles founded Christian communities, 
churches, all based on the same principles and having the 
same object in view, but quite independent of each other, 
and having no common head on earth. 

“ Besides the several churches in Judea, in Galilee, in 
Samaria and elsewhere, we find the apostle Paul himself 
founding many distinct churches, both in Asia and in Eu- 
rope. And it does not appear that these have any com- 
mon head on earth except himself; nor that he appointed 
any one to succeed him in having the care of all the 
churches.” Now what, according to these episcopal con- 
cessions, was the bishop at first, but the pastor of a single 
church, a parochial bishop, exercising only the jurisdiction 
and enjoying the rights of an independent pastor of a 
church? But more of this hereafter. , 

Several of the ancient churches firmly asserted and main- 
tained their original religious liberty by refusing to acknow- 
ledge the authority of the ancient councils for a long time 
after the greater part of the churches had subjected them- 
selves to the authority of these confederacies. The church 
in Africa, for example, and some of the Eastern churches, 
although they adopted the custom of holding councils, and 
were in correspondence with these churches, declined enter- 
ing into any grand Christian confederation with them ; and 
continued for some time inflexibly tenacious of their own 
just liberty and independence. This their example is an 
effectual refutation of those who pretend that these councils 
were divinely appointed and had, jure divino, authority over 

9 Kingdom of Christ. N. Y. 1842; p. 110, 136. 
10 Whately’s Hist. of Relig. Worship, pp. 101-2. 


INDEPENDENCE OF THE CHURCHES. 49 


the churches. Who can suppose that these churches would 
have asserted their independence so sternly against an in- 
stitution appointed by our Lord or his apostles?” 

The early independence of the churches, then, is conceded 
even by Episcopalians themselves. It has both the sanction 
of apostolic precedent and the concurring authority of ec- 
clesiastical writers, ancient and modern. This is a point 
strongly illustrative of the religious freedom which was the 
basis of their original polity. This independence of par- 
ticular churches is the great central principle, the original 
element, of their popular constitution and government. It 
vests the authority and power of each church in its own 
members collectively. It guards their rights. It guaran- 
tees to them the elective franchise, and ensures to them the 
enjoyment of religious liberty under a government admin- 
istered by the voice of the majority or delegated at pleasure 
to their representatives. The constitution of the churches 
and their mutual relations may not have been precisely 
Congregational or Presbyterian, but they involved the 
principles of the religious freedom and the popular rights 
which both are designed to protect. 


11 Even the council of Nice, in treating of the authority of the me- 
tropolitan bishops of Rome, Antioch and Alexandria, rests the dignity 
and authority of these prelates not on any divine right, but solely on 
ancient usage. Td ἀρχαῖα ἔϑη κρατείτω, etc., ἐπειδὴ καὶ τῷ ἐν TH Ῥώμῃ 
ἐπισκόπῳ σύνηϑές ἐστιν, Can. 6. Comp. Du Pin, Antiq. Eccl. Disci- 
plina, Diss. 1. 7. Mosheim, De Rebus Christ., Saec. II. 2 23, Note. 

5 9 


CHAPTER av. 
ELECTIONS BY THE CHURCH. 


THE right of suffrage is the first requsite of civil and re- 
ligious liberty. Without it, in church 01 state, man is a 
serf, a vassal, a slave, restrained in the enjoyment of his 
inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happi- 
ness. This right, early abridged and finally usurped and 
destroyed by the hierarchy, was from the beginning en- 
joyed in the Christian church. The first public act of this 
body was a formal recognition and a legitimate exercise of 
this right. First in importance among their popular rights, 
they maintained it with greater constancy than any other 
against the usurpations of prelatical power, and resigned it 
last of all into the hands of their spiritual oppressors. The 
subject of the following chapter leads us to consider, 


I. The evidence that the right of suffrage was enjoyed by 
the primitive church. 
II. The time and means of the extinction of this right. 


I. The members of the primitive church enjoyed the right 
of electing, by a popular vote, their own officers and teach- 
ers. The evidence in support of this position is derived 
from the writings of the apostles and of the early fathers. 
In the former we have on record instances of the election 


of an apostle, and of deacons, delegates and presbyters of 
50 


ELECTIONS BY THE CHURCH. 51 


the church, each by a popular vote of that body. From 
the latter we learn that the church continued for several 
centuries subsequent to the age of the apostles in the enjoy- 
ment of the elective franchise. 

1. The scriptural argument, from the writings of the 
apostles. 

(a) The election of an apostle. 

The first public act of the church after our Lord’s ascen- 
sion was the choice of a substitute in the place of the apostate 
apostle, Judas. This election was made, not by the apostles 
themselves, but by the joint action of the whole body of 
believers. If, in any instance, the apostles had the right, 
by their own independent authority, to invest another with 
the ministerial office, we might expect them to exercise 
that prerogative in supplying this vacancy in their own 
body. That right, however, they virtually disclaimed, by 
submitting the election to the arbitration of the assembled 
body of believers. The election was the act of the assem- 
bly, and was made either by casting lots or by an elective 
vote. Mosheim understands the phrase, ἔδωχαν χλήρους 
αὐτῶν, to express the casting of a popular vote by the Chris- 
tians. To express the casting of lots, according to this 
author, the verb should have been ἔβαλον, as in Matt. xxvii. 
35; Luke xxii. 34; John xix. 24; Mark xv. 24. Comp. 
Septuagint, Ps. xxii. 19; Joel iii. 3; Nah. iii. 10, which 
also accords with the usage of Homer in similar cases. 
But the phrase, ἔδωχαν χλήρος, according to this author, 
expresses the casting of a popular vote; the term, χλῆρος, 
being used in the sense of ¢7¢gos, a suffrage or vote, so that 
what the evangelist meant to say was simply this: “and 
those who were present gave their votes.’” 


1 Tliad, 23, 352. Odyss. 14, 209. 
2 De Rebus Christ., Saec. 1, ¢ 14, Note. 


δ. THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


The precise mode of determining the election, perhaps, 
cannot be fully settled. But the persons who gave the vote 
appear to have been the whole body of believers then 
present. When we. compare this election with that of the 
deacons, which soon followed, and consider the uniform 
custom of the disciples to submit to the church the enacting 
of their own laws, and the exercise of their popular rights, 
in other respects, we must regard the election before us as 
the joint act of the brethren there assembled. For this 
opinion we have high historical authority. “The whole 
company of believers had a part in supplying the number 
of the apostles themselves, and the choice was their joint 
act.”* “At the request of the apostles, the church chose, by 
lot, Matthias for an apostle, in the place of Judas.’”* 
“Without doubt, those expositors adopt the right view, 
who suppose that not only the apostles, but all the believers 
were at that time assembled; for, though in Acts 1. 26, the 


993 


apostles are primarily intended, yet the disciples collectively 
form the chief subject, Acts 1. 15, to which all at the be- 
ginning of the next chapter successively refers.”’ This is 
said with reference to the assembly on the day of Pentecost, 
but the reasoning shows distinctly the views of the author 
respecting the persons who composed the assembly at the 
election of Matthias. “In all decisions and acts, even in 
the election of the twelfth apostle, the church had a voice.’””® 
Even after the rise of episcopacy the bishop was frequently 
chosen by lot from a number of candidates previously 
elected by the people.’ 

3 Rohr, Kritischen Predigerbibliothek. Bd. 13. Heft. 6. 

4 Ὁ. Grossmann, Ueber eine Reformation der protestantischen Kir- 
chenverfassung in Kénigreiche Sachsen. Leipzig, 1833, S. 47. 

5 Neander, Apost. Kirch. I. ο. 1. Note. 

6 Greiling, Apostol. Kirchengemeine, S. 15. 

7 Bingham Β. LV. Chap. i. 1. Cotelerius 11. App. p. 180. τὸν τῆς 


ἐπισκοπῆς κλῆρον, Irenaeus. 


ELECTIONS BY THE CHURCH. 53 


Chrysostom’s exposition of the passage, confirmed as it is 
also by Cyprian, may, without doubt, be received as a fair 
expression of the sentiments and usages of the early church 
on this subject. “ Peter did everything here with the com- 
mon consent; nothing, by his own will and authority. He 
left the judgment to the multitude, to secure the respect to 
the elected, and to free himself from every invidious reflec- 
tion.” After quoting the words, “they appointed two,” he 
adds, “he did not himself appoint them, it was the act of 
81} 

The order of the transaction appears to have been as 
follows: Peter stands up in the midst of the disciples, con- 
vened in assembly to the number of one hundred and 
twenty, and explaining to them the necessity of choosing 
another apostle in the place of the apostate Judas, urges 
them to proceed to the election. The whole assembly then 
designate two of their number as candidates for the office, 
and after prayer for divine direction, all cast lots, and the 
lot falls upon Matthias ;? or, according to Mosheim, all cast 
their votes, and the vote falls upon Matthias. Whatever 
may have been the mode of the election, it was a popular 
vote, and indicates the inherent right of the people to make 
the election. 

(b) The election of the seven deacons, Acts vi. 1-6. 

Here again the proposition originated with the apostles. 
It was received with approbation by the whole multitude, 
who immediately proceeded to make the election by a 
united and public vote. The order of the transaction is 
very clearly marked. The apostles propose to “the multi- 
tude of the disciples” the appointment of the seven, The 
proposal is favorably received by “the whole multitude,” 


8 Hom. ad locum, Vol. IX. p. 25. Comp. Cyprian, Ep. Ixviii.; vi. 4. 
® Rothe, Anfiinge der Christ. Kirch. 5. 149. Comp. Lange’s Comm., 
Acts vi. 1-9. 
5 # 


54 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


who accordingly proceed to the choice of the proposed 
number, and set them before the apostles, not to ratify the 
election, but to induct them into office by the laying on of 
hands. This election is universally admitted to have been 
made by a popular vote, and may be passed without further 
remark. Indeed, “it is impossible,’ as Owen observes, 
“that there should be a more evident convincing instance 
and example of the free choice of ecclesiastical officers by 
the multitude or fraternity of the church, than is given us 
herein. Nor was there any ground or reason why this 
order and process should be observed, why the apostles 
would not themselves nominate and appoint persons, whom 
they saw and knew meet for this office to receive it, but 
that it was the right and liberty of the people, according 
to the mind of Christ, to choose their own officers, which 
they would not abridge or infringe.” 

(c) The election of delegates of the churches. 

These delegates were the fellow-laborers and assistants of 
the apostle, to accompany him in his travels, to assist in 
setting in order the churches, and generally to supply his 
lack of service to all the churches the care of which came 
upon him. Such, according to Rothe, was Timothy, whom 
he commends as his fellow-laborer, Rom. xvi. 21; 1 Thess. 
ili. 2, and associates with himself in his salutation to the 
churches, Phil. i. 1; 1 Thess. i. 1; 2 Thess. 1. 1, ete. Such 
was Titus, 2 Cor. vili. 23; Silvanus, 1 Thess. i. 1; 2 Thess. 
i. 1; Mark, Coloss. iv. 10; 1 Peter v. 18; Clemens, Phil. 
iv. 3; Epaphras, Coloss. 1. 7, ete.” 

Whatever may have been the specific duties of this office, 
the appointment to it was made by a vote of the church. 
One such assistant Paul greatly commends, who was ap- 


10 Gospel Church, Chap. TV. 
11 Rothe, Anfinge, I. 5. 395-307. 


ELECTIONS BY THE CHURCH. 5a 


pointed by the church χειροτονηϑεὶς ὁπὸ τῶν ἐχκλησιῶν, 2 Cor. 
viii. 19, as his traveling companion. ‘To this and the elec- 
tion of the seven deacons Neander refers as evidence of the 
manner in which this popular right was exercised in the 
churches. “Inasmuch as the apostles submitted the ap- 
pointment of the deacons to the vote of the church, and 
that of the delegates who should accompany them in the 
name of the churches, we may infer that a similar course 
was pursued also in the appointment of other officers of the 
ehureh,” ™ 

Rothe appeals to the same example as a clear instance 
of a popular election, and adds, that it harmonizes with the 
authority of Clement of Rome, who states explictly that 
where the apostles had established churches they appointed 
bishops and deacons, “with the approbation of the whole 


” συνευδυχησάσης τῆς ἐχχλησίας πάσης." 


church, 

(d) The election of presbyters or bishops. 

That presbyters were elected by the church is a fair con- 
clusion from the examples that have already been given. 
If the apostles submitted to the church the election of one 
of their number as an extraordinary and temporary minis- 
ter, superior to presbyters, and of deacons as subordinates 
to them, much more may they be supposed to have sub- 
mitted to the same body the election of their ordinary pas- 
tors and teachers, the presbyters or bishops. If there be 
any doubt as to the choice of Matthias by the church, there 
can be none of the election of the deacons and delegates by 
a popular vote. “That the presbyters of the primitive 
church of Jerusalem were elected by the suffrages of the 
people cannot, I think, well be doubted by any one who 
shall have duly considered the prudence and moderation 


12 Allgemein. Gesch. 1. 8. 290. Trans. 189. 
3 Anfinge, 1, 5. 151. 


56 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


discovered by the apostles in filling up the vacancy in their 
own number and in appointing curators or guardians for 
the poor.” “ After having invested the churches with the 
right of electing their own officers, can the apostles be sup- 
posed to have invaded this sacred right by refusing to them 
the election of their own pastors and teachers ? 

These several instances of election chiefly relate to the 
church at Jerusalem. But wherever churches were planted 
by the apostles, they were, without doubt, organized after 
the original plan of that at Jerusalem; so that the above 
is a fair exhibition of the mode of appointment which gen- 
erally prevailed in the churches. “The new churches every- 
where formed themselves on the model of the mother church 
at Jerusalem.” ” “Since all these churches were consti- 
tuted and formed after the model of that which was planted 
at Jerusalem, a review of the constitution and regulations 
of this one church alone will enable us to form a tolerably 
accurate conception of the form and discipline of all these 
primitive Christian assemblies.” ἐν 

In the Gentile churches the popular principle is more 
strongly marked than in the Jewish, but the organization 
of all appears, at first, to have been essentially the same. 
At a later period, all may have been more or less modified 
by peculiar circumstances, and a greater difference may 
naturally appear in the government of different churches. 

The conclusion therefore is, that the apostolical churches 
generally exercised the right of universal suffrage. 

On the same principle, Paul and Barnabas may be pre- 
sumed to have proceeded when, in their missionary tour, 


14 Mosheim, De Rebus Christ., Saec. I. ὁ 39. Comp. Neander and 
Rothe, cited above. 

16 Gieseler. Cunningham’s Trans. I. p. 56. 

16 Mosheim, De Rebus Christ., Saec. I. 87. Comp. Whately’s 
Hist. of Relig. Worship, p. 114. 


ELECTIONS BY THE CHURCH. sy | 


they appointed presbyters in the churches which they 
visited, Acts xiv. 23. The question here turns wholly upon 
the interpretation of the term yetpotovycaytes, “when they 
had ordained ;” or, as in the margin, “when with lifting up 
of hands they had chosen them.” 

If, according to the marginal reading, we understand, 
with our interpreters, the declaration to be, that the apostles 
made choice of these disciples, even this supposition does 
not necessarily exclude the members of the church them- 
selves from participating in the election. It would imply, 
rather, that Paul and his companion proceeded in the usual 
way by calling the churches to the election of their own 
presbyters ; just as in the instructions which Paul gives to 
Titus and to Timothy respecting the appointment of pres- 
byters and deacons for the churches of Ephesus and Crete 
respectively, the participation of these churches in the ap- 
pointment is of necessity presupposed. For, “from the 
fact that Paul, in committing to his pupils, as to Timothy 
and Titus, the organization of new churches or of those 
which had fallen into many distractions, committed to 
them also the appointment of the presbyters and deacons, 
and directed their attention to the qualifications requisite 
for such offices, from this fact we are by no means to infer 
that they themselves effected this alone, without the participa- 
tion of the churches. Much more, indeed, does the manner 
in which Paul himself is elsewhere wont to address himself 
to the whole church and to claim the co-operation of the 
whole, authorize us to expect that, at least where there ex- 
isted a church already established, he would have required 
their co-operation also in matters of common concern. But 
the supposition is certainly possible that the apostle in many 
cases, and especially in forming a new church, might think 
it best himself to propose to the church the persons best 
qualified for its officers, and such a nomination must natu- 

C# 


δ8 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


rally have had great weight. In the example of the family 
of Stephanas at Corinth, we see the members of the house- 
hold first converted in the city becoming also the first to 
fill the offices of the church.”  Neander also asserts that 
this mode of election, by the whole body of the church, re- 
mained unimpaired in the third century.” 

The foregoing views of Neander, together with the follow- 
ing extract from Mosheim, give us a clear idea of the man- 
ner in which the elective franchise was exercised in the 
primitive church through the first three centuries of the 
Christian era. “To them (the multitude, or people) be- 
longed the appointment of the bishop and presbyters, as 
well as of the inferior ministers; with them resided the 
power of enacting laws, as also of adopting or rejecting 
whatever might be proposed in the general assemblies, and 
of expelling and again receiving into communion any de- 
praved or unworthy members. In short, nothing whatever, 
of any moment, could. be determined on or carried into 
effect without their knowledge and concurrence.” ᾿ἢ 

But the phrase itself, γειροτονήσαντες, may with great 
probability be understood to indicate that the appointment 
of these presbyters was by a public vote of the church. 

(a) This is the appropriate meaning of the term, χειροτονεῖν, 
which is here used. It means, to stretch out the hand, to hold 
up the hand, as in voting; hence, to give one’s vote, by hold- 
ing up the hand, to choose, to elect. In this sense it is abund- 
antly used in classic Greek. Demosthenes exhorts the 
Athenians in popular assemby to elect, χειροτονῆσαι, ten 
men to go on an embassy to the Thebans.* Again it is re- 


17 Apost. Kirch. Vol. 1. ec. 5, p. 194. Trans. I. 181. 

18 Neander, Allgem. Gesch. I. 323, seq. 340-342, 2d ed. Comp. 
Trans. p. 199, 211; IL, 0: 19: 

19 De Rebus Christ., Saec. I. 2 45. 

* Demos. on the Crown, ¢ 178, 


ELECTIONS BY THE CHURCH. 59 


solved by the senate and people of Athens to choose, ἐλέσϑαι, 
five of the people to go on an embassy, which embassadors, 
thus chosen, χειροτονηϑέντες, shall depart, etc. The people, 
6 δῆμος choosing ἀιρούμενος, a commissary, elected me, ἐμὲ 
ἐχεειροτύνησαν, ὃ 249, 

Again, ὃ 285, the people, 6 δῆμος, choosing, χειροτονῶν, an 
orator, to pronounce a funeral oration over the dead bodies 
of those who fell at Chaeronaea, elected,—not you, ὀὺ 
σὲ ἐχειροτόνησε; but chose me, ἐχειροτόνησεν ἐμέ. In the 
same sense the term is frequently used by other Greek 
authors. - 

Robinson translates it, to choose by vote, to appoint. Sui- 
das also renders it by ἐχλεξάμενοι, having chosen. Such is 
the concurring authority of lexicographers. 

(6) This rendering is sustained by the common use of the 
term by early Christian writers. The brother who accom- 
panied Paul in his agency to make charitable collections 
for the suffering Jews in Judea, was chosen of the churches 
for this service, where the same word is used, χειροτονηϑείς. 
ἑπὸ τῶν εχκλησιῶν, 2 Cor. vill. 19. “Tt will become you,” says 
Ignatius to the church at Philadelphia, “as the church of 
God, to choose, χειροτονῆσαι, some deacon to go there,” ὦ, e., 
to the church at Antioch.” | 

Again, to the church at Smyrna, “ It will be fitting, and 
for the honor of God, that your church elect, χειροτονῆσαι, 
some worthy delegate,” etc.” 

Again, in the Greek version of the Codex Ecclesiae A fri- 
canae, the heading of the nineteenth canon is, that a bishop 
should not be chosen, χειροτονεῖσϑαι, except by the multitude, 
ἀπὸ πολλῶν." 


The above examples all relate, neither to an official ap- 


0 Ad Phil.-e. 10, 21 Ad Smyrn.c. 11 
22 Cited by Suicer, ad verbum. 


60 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


pointment or commission granted by another, nor to an or- 
dination or consecration, but to an actual election by a plu- 
rality of voters. They justify, therefore, the supposition 
that Paul and Barnabas, like the apostles in the case of 
Matthias, and of the seven deacons, led the church to a 
popular election of their presbyters. 

(7) This mode of appointment was the established usage of 
the churches, to which it may be presumed that Paul and 
Barnabas adhered in the election of these presbyters. The 
appointment of Matthias the apostle, of the seven deacons, 
and of the delegates of the churches, as we have already 
seen, was by a public vote of the churches. And the same 
continued to be the authorized mode of appointment at the 
close of the apostolical age; as we learn from the epistle of 
Clement, cited above, who also rebukes the church of Cor- 
inth for rejecting from office those presbyters who had been 
chosen in this manner.” No other mode of appointment to 
any office in the church had, in any instance, been adopted, 
so far as we are informed; from all which the inference is, 
that presbyters, like all other ecclesiastical officers, were 
appointed by vote of the church. 

(5) This conclusion is sustained by the most approved 
authorities. According to Suicer, the primary and appro- 
priate signification of the term is to denote an election made 
by the uplifting of the hand, and particularly denotes the 
election of a bishop by vote. “In this sense,” he adds, 
“it continued for a long time to be used in the church, 
denoting not an ordination or consecration, but an election.” 
Grotius,” Meyer,” and De Wette” so interpret the passage, 
to say nothing of Beza, Bohmer, Rothe and others. 

To the same effect is also the following extract from Tin- 

23 Ep. I. ad Corinth. ὁ 44. See p. 65, note. 
24 Thesaurus, Eccl. v. χειροτονέω. 
25, 26, 27 Comment. ad locum. 


ELECTIONS BY THE CHURCH. 61 


dal: ‘“ We read only of the apostles, constituting elders by 
the suffrages of the people, Acts xiv. 23, which, as it is the 
genuine signification of the Greek word, χειρυτονήσαντες, so 
it is accordingly interpreted by Erasmus, Beza, Diodati, 
and those who translated the Swiss, French, Italian, Belgic, 
and even English Bibles, till the episcopal correction, which 
leaves out the words, by election, as well as the marginal 
notes, which affirm that the apostles did not thrust pastors 
into the church through a lordly superiority, but chose and 
placed them there by the voice of the congregation.”* Tyn- 
dale’s translation is as follows: “ And when they had or- 
dened them seniours by eleccion, in every congregacion, 
after they had preyde and fasted, they commennd them to 
God, on whom they beleved.” 

In view of the whole, we must conclude, that presbyters, 
like all other ecclesiastical officers, were elected in the 
apostolic churches by the suffrages of the people,” even 
though the term γχειρυτονέω is occasionally used to denote 
either an official appointment, or the laying on of hands. 


2. The historical argument, from the early Fathers. 

When from the writings of the apostles we turn to the 
records of history, we find evidence sufficient to show that 
the churches continued, even after the rise of episcopacy, to 
defend and to exercise the right of election,—that great 
principle which is the basis of religious liberty. 

The earliest and most authentic authority on this subject, 


28 Rights of the Church, p. 358. 

29. “Tt may not have occurred to some of our readers,” says the Ed- 
inburgh Review, “that the Greek word, éxxAyoia, which we translate 
church, was the peculiar term used to denote the general assembly of 
the people in the old democracies, and that it essentially expresses a 
popularly constituted meeting, and that such, in a great measure, was 
the original constitution of the Christian society.’—Baudry’s Selec- 
tions, V., p. 319. 

6 


62 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


after that of the Scriptures themselves, is derived from 
Clement of Rome, contemporary with some of the apostles. 
This venerable father, in his epistle to the church at Cor- 
inth, about A. D. 96, speaks of the regulations which were 
established by the apostles for the appointment of others 
to succeed them after their decease. This appointment was 
to be made with the consent and approbation of the whole 
church, συνευδοχησάσης τῆς ἐχχλησίας πάσης, grounded on 
their previous knowledge of the qualifications of the candi- 
date for this office. This testimony clearly indicates the 
active co-operation of the church in the appointment of 
their ministers.” It may have been the custom for the 
presbyters to propose one to supply any vacancy which oc- 
curred; but it remained for the church to ratify or to reject 
the nomination.” 

Tertullian in his Apology for Christians against the hea- 
then, A. D. 198 or 205, says that the elders came into their 
office by the testimony [of the people], that is, by the approval, 
the suffrage or election of the people.” Their free and in- 

30 The passage has been already cited, but it is here given at length, 
with the title of C. J. Hefele: “ Apostolorum institutio, ne de munere 
sacredotali contentio fiat. Legitime electos ac recte viventes de munere suo 
dejicere nefas.—Kai οἱ ἀπόστολοι ἡμῶν ἔγνωσαν διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ? Iyoot 
Χριστοῦ, ὅτι ἔρις ἔσται ἐπὶ τοῦ ὀνόματος τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς. Διὰ ταύτην οὖν 
τὴν αἰτίαν πρόγνωσιν εἰληφότες τελείαν κατέστησαν τοὺς προειρημένους, 
καὶ μεταξὺ ἐπινομὴν δεδώκασιν, ὅπως, ἐὰν κοιμηϑῶσιν, διαδέξωνται ἔτεροι 
δεδοκιμασμένοι ἄνδρες τὴν λειτουργίαν αὐτῶν. Τοὺς οὖν κατασταϑέντας 
ὑπ’ ἐκείνων, ἢ μεταξὺ ὑφ᾽ ἑτέρων ἐλλογίμων ἀνδρῶν, συνευδοκησάσης 
τῆς ἐκκλησίας πάσης, καὶ λειτουργήσαντας ἀμέμπτως τῷ ποιμνίῳ 
τοῦ Χριστοῦ μετὰ ταπεινοφροσύνης, ἡσύχως καὶ ἀβαναύσως μεμαρτυρημέν- 
ove τε πολλοῖς χρόνοις ὑπὸ πάντων, τοὐτουη οὐ δικαίως νομίζομεν ἀποβάλ- 
λεσϑαι τῆς λειτουργίας. ᾿Αμαρτία yap ov μικρὰ ἡμῖν ἔσται, ἐὰν τοὺς 
ἀμέμπτως καὶ ὁσίως προσενέγκοντας τὰ δῶρα τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς ἀποβάλωμεν." 

31 Neander, Allgemein. Gesch. I. S. 323, 2d ed. Trans. p. 189. 

2 Praesident probati quique seniores honorem istum non pretio, sed 
testimonio, adepti.—Apol. c. 39. 


ELECTIONS BY THE CHURCH. 63 


dependent suffrages were the highest testimony which the 
people could give of their approbation of their elders. 

This interpretation of Tertullian is sustained by Cyprian, 
who requires the appointment of a bishop to be ratified by 
the approval and judgment of his colleagues and of the 
people, et collegarum ac plebis testimonvo et judicio compro- 
bato, Epist. 41. He must be designated in the presence of 
the people, and by their public judgment and testimony ap- 
proved as worthy and suitable, ut sacerdos plebe praesente, 
sub omnium occulis deligatur, et dignus atque idoneus pub- 
lico judicio, ac testimonio comprobetur. He is to be invested 
with the episcopal office, de universae fraternitatis suffragio 
et de episcoporum qui in praesentia convenerant, Ep. 68, ¢. 5. 
This will be a just and legitimate ordination, quae omnium 
suffragio et judicio fuerit examinatio. From these varied 
forms of expression it is sufficiently clear that the testimo- 
nium of the people was essential to the validity of an elec- 
tion. Their suffrages were the highest testimony which 
they could give of their approbation of their elders. 

Origen, in his last book against Celsus, about A. D. 240, 
speaks of the elders and rulers of the churches as ἐχλεγόμενοι, 
chosen to their office. In his sixth homily on Leviticus, he 
asserts that the presence of the people is required in the 
ordination of a priest; and the reason assigned for their 
intervention is to secure an impartial election and the ap- 
pointment to this office of one who possessed the highest 
qualifications for it. The whole passage implies the active 
co-operation of the people in the appointment of their min- 
isters.* 


33 Requiritur enim in ordinando sacerdote et praesentia populi ut 
sciant omnes, et certi sint, quia qui praestantior est ex omni populo, 
qui doctior, qui sanctior, qui in omni virtute eminentior—ille eligitur 
ad sacerdotium, et hoc, adstante populo, ne qua postmodum, retractatio 
cuiquam, ne quis scrupulus resideret. 


64 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


Even Cyprian, A. D. 258, with all his high-church pre- 
tensions, most fully accords to the people the right of suf- 
frage in the appointment of their spiritual teachers, declar- 
ing that they have the highest authority to choose those who 
are worthy of this office and to refuse such as may be un- 
worthy. It was, according to this father, an apostolic usage, 
preserved by a divine authority in his day, and observed 
throughout the churches of Africa (apud nos), that a pas- 
tor, sacerdos, should be chosen publicly, in the presence of 
the people; and that by their decision thus publicly ex- 
pressed, the candidate should be adjudged worthy to fill 
the vacant office, whether of deacon, presbyter or bishop. 
In accordance with these views, it was his custom, on all 
such occasions, to consult his clergy and the people before 
proceeding to ordain any one to the office of the min- 
istry.” 

So universal was the right of suffrage, and so reasonable, 
that it attracted the notice of the emperor, Alexander Seve- 
rus, who reigned from A. D. 222 to 235. In imitation of 
the custom of the Christians and Jews in the appointment 
of their priests, as he says, he gave to the people the right 
of rejecting the appointment of any procurator, or chief 


34 Plebs obsequens praeceptis dominicis et Deum metuens, a pecca- 
tore praeposito separare se debet, nec se ad sacrilegi sacerdotis sacri- 
ficia miscere, quando ipsa maximé habeat potestatem vel eligendi dig- 
nos sacerdotes, vel indignos recusandt. Quod et ipsum videmus de divina 
auctoritate descendere ut sacerdos, plebe presente, sub omnium oculis 
deligatur, et dignus atque idoneus publico judicio ac testimonio com- 
probetur,—Diligentur, de traditione divina et apostolica observatione 
servandum est et tenendum quod apud nos quoque, et fere per provin- 
cias universas tenetur, ut ad ordinationes rite celebrandas ad eam ple- 
bem cui praepositus ordinatur, episcopi ejusdem provinciae proximi 
quique conveniant et episcopus deligatur plebe praesente.—Ep. 68. 
Comp. Ep. 7; Ep. 9, 3-4; Ep. 5; Ep. 13. 


y 


ELECTIONS BY THE CHURCH. 65 


president of the provinces, whom he might nominate to 
such an office.” Their votes, however, in these cases, were 
not merely testimonial, but really judicial and elective. 

Even the Apostolic Constitutions, fabricated toward the 
end of the third century to support the fictitious pretensions 
of bishops and to assist the growth of episcopal power, re- 
quired that a bishop shall be “a select person chosen by the 
whole people.” ὁ 

The authorities above cited indicate that the suffrages of 
the church were directed by a previous nomination of the 
clergy. But there are on record instances in which the 
people, of their own accord and by acclamation, elected 
individuals to the office of bishop or presbyter without any 
previous nomination. Athanasius of Alexandria, A. D. 
328, was chosen by the suffrages of the people, ψήφῳ cov 
λαῦυ παντός," and Fabian also, A. Ὁ. 296. Ambrose, 
bishop of Milan, was elected in this manner, A. D, 374.” 
Martin of Tours, A. D. 375, was appointed in the same 
manner.” So also were Eustathius at Antioch, A. D. 310,* 
Chrysostom at Constantinople, A. D. 398,” Eraclius at 
Hippo,® and Miletius at Antioch.“ It is also observable 
that these examples belong to a later age, the fourth cen- 
tury. They are therefore important as evidence that the 


35 Lampridius, in Vit. Alexandri Severi, c. 46. 

36 Book viii. 4. Comp. 16: 

81 Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 21, Tom. I. p. 377. 

38 Euseb. Hist. vi. c. 29. 

39 Paulin., Vit. Ambros, Rufin., Hist. Eccl. Lib. 2, c. 11; Theo- 
doret, Hist. Eecl. Lib. 4, c. 6, p. 666; Sozomen, Hist. Eccl. Lib. 6. 
c. 24. 

40 Sulpic. Sev., Vit. e. Martini, ο. 7. 

41 Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. Lib. 1, ¢. 6. 

#2 Socrat., Hist. Eccl. Lib. 6, ¢. 2. 

48 Augustin., 4 Ep. 110, al. 213. 

Ἢ Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. Lib. 2, c. 27. 

6 * 


09 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


people continued even at this late period to retain their 
rights in these popular elections. 

It has been asserted that the people were denied the right. 
of suffrage by the fourth canon of the council of Nice. But 
Bingham has clearly shown that the people were not ex- 
cluded by this canon from their ancient privilege in this 
respect.” And both Riddle* and Bishop Pearson, as 
quoted by him, concur with Bingham in opinion on this 
subject. Indeed the assertion is sufficiently refuted by the 
fact that Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, and others 
were elected by popular vote immediately after the session 
of that council. 

Daillé sums up the evidence on this subject in the follow- 
ing terms: “It is clear that in the primitive times they 
[popular elections and ordinations] depended partly on the 
people, and not wholly on the clergy; but every company 
of the faithful either chose their own pastors, or else had 
leave to consider and to approve of those that were proposed 
to them for that purpose. Pontius, a deacon of the church 
of Carthage, says that “St. Cyprian, being yet a neophyte, 
was elected to the charge of pastor and the degree of bishop 
by the judgment of God and the favor of the people.” 
Cyprian also tells us the same in several places. In his 
fifty-second epistle, speaking of Cornelius, he says, “‘ That 
he was made bishop of Rome by the judgment of God and 
of his Christ, by the testimony of the greatest part of the 
clergy, by the suffrage of the people who were there present, 
and by the college of pastors or ancient bishops, all good 


men. = 


45 Book 4, chap. 2, 2 11. 46 Christ. Antiq. p. 286. 

47 Judicio Dei, et plebis favore, ad officium sacerdotii, et episcopatus 
gradum adhuc neophytus, ut putabatur, novellus electus est.—Pont. 
Diaz. in vita Cypr. 

48 Factus est autem Cornelius episcopus, de Dei et Christi ejus judi- 


ELECTIONS BY THE CHURCH. 67 


“Tt appears clear enough, both out of St. Hierome ® and 
by the acts of the council of Constantinople® and of Chal- 
cedon,” and also by the Pontificale Romanum” and several 
other productions, that this custom continued a long time 
in the church.” * 

This right in question is clearly admitted even in the Ro- 
man pontifical, in which the bishop, at the ordination of a 
priest, is made to say: “It was not without good reason 
that the fathers had ordained that the advice of the people 
should be taken in the election of those persons who were 
to serve at the altar; to the end that having given their 
assent to their ordination, they might the more readily 
yield obedience to those who were so ordained.” * This 
passage is cited by Daillé, who remarks that an honest 
canon of Valencia very gravely proposed to the council of 
Trent that this and all such authorities should be blotted 
out, so that no trace or footstep of them should remain in 
future, for heretics to bring against them for having taken 
away this right ! 


cio, de clericorum pené omnium testimonio, de plebis, que tune adfuit 
suffragio, et de sacerdotum antiqnorum, et bonorum virorum col- 
legio.—Cyprian, Ep. 52, ¢. 8. 

49 Hieron., Com. 10 in Ezech. ὁ: 33 Tom. III. p. 935 et Com. in 
Age. Ed. Basil, 1537, T. 6, p. 280, A. 

°° Cone. Const., 1 in Ep. ad Damas, p. 94 et 95, t. 1, Cone. Gener. 

1 Cone. Chalced., act. 11, p. 375, t. 2 Cone. Gen., et act. 16, p. 
430, ete. 

ὅ5 Pontific. Rom. in Ordinat. Presbyter. fol. 38, vide supr. 1. 1, ο. 4. 

53 Comp. also Leo. Epist. 9, c. 6; 12, ¢. 5. 

54 Neque enim frustra 4 patribus institutum, ut de electione illorum 
qui ad regimen altaris adhibendi sunt, consulatur etiam populus; quia 
de vita et conversatione praesentandi, quod nonunquam ignoratur a 
pluribus, scitur ἃ paucis; et necesse est, et facilius ei quis obedientiam 
exhibeat ordinatio cui assensum praebuerit ordinando.—Pontif. Rom. 
De Ordinat. Pres. fol. 38. 


68 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


Bingham” and Chancellor King,” and multitudes of the 
most respectable writers in the communion of the Episcopal 
Church, fully sustain the foregoing representations of the 
right of suffrage as enjoyed by the primitive churches. 
They are clearly supported by the late Dr. Burton” and 
by Riddle, both of Oxford University, and by the best au- 
thorities, both ancient and modern. ‘The mode of appoint- 
ing bishops and presbyters has been repeatedly changed. 
Election by the people, for instance, has been discontinued. 
This is indeed, in the estimation of Episcopalians, a great 
improvement; but still, as they must allow, it is a change.” * 

For what term of time the several churches continued in 
the full enjoyment of the right of suffrage we are not dis- 
tinctly informed. We can only say with Mosheim, “ This 
power of appointing their elders continued to be exercised 
by the members of the church at large as long as primitive 
manners were retained entire, and those who ruled over the 
churches did not conceive themselves at liberty to introduce 
any deviation from the apostolic model.” The reader will 
find an elaborate discussion of this whole subject, with an 
extended citation of authorities, through the several centu- 
ries of church history, in Blondell’s treatise, De Plebis in 
llectionibus jure.” 


II. Abridgment and final extinction of the right of suf 
frage. 
The sovereign rights of the people in their free elective 


55 Book 4 Ὁ, 6. 56 Part I. c. 3-e. 6. 

δ] Church History, ο. 12. 

58 Riddle, Christ. Antiq., Preface, p. 76. 

59 De Rebus Christ., Saec. I. 4 39. Comp. Clarkson, No Evidence 
for Diocesan Churches. 

60 Apologia pro. St. Hieron, pp. 379-549. Comp. Bohmer, Alther- 
thum, 240; Cone. Cathar., iv. c. 22. 


ELECTIONS BY THE CHURCH. 69 


franchise began at an early period to be invaded. The final 
result of these changes was a total disfranchisement of the 
laity and the substitution of an ecclesiastical despotism in 
the place of the elective government of the primitive church. 
Of these changes one of the most effective was the attempt, 
by means of correspondence and ecclesiastical synods, to 
consolidate the churches into one church universal, to impose 
upon them a uniform code of laws, and establish an eccle- 
siastical polity administered by the clergy. The idea of 
a holy catholic church, and of an ecclesiastical hierarchy 
for the government of the same, was wholly a conception 
of the priesthood. Whatever may have been the motives 
with which this doctrine of the unity of the church was 
promulgated, it prepared the way for the overthrow of the 
popular government of the church. | 

Above all, the doctrine of the divine right of the priest- 
hood aimed a fatal blow at the liberties of the people. The 
clergy were no longer the servants of the people, chosen by 
them to the work of the ministry, but a privileged order, 
like the Levitical priesthood; and, like them, by divine 
right invested with peculiar prerogatives. Elated with the 
pride of their divine commission, a degenerate and aspiring 
priesthood sought by every means to make themselves inde- 
pendent of the suffrages of the people. This independence 
they began by degrees to assert and to exercise. The bishop 
began, in the third century, to appoint at pleasure his own 
deacons and other inferior orders of the clergy. In other 
appointments also he endeavored to disturb the freedom of 
of the elections and to direct them agreeably to his own 
will.” 

And yet Cyprian, even in the middle of that century, 
apologized to the laity and clergy of his diocese for appoint- 


61 Pertsch. Kirch. Gesch., drit. Jahrhund, 8, 439-452. Planck, 
Gesell. Verfassung, 1.188. 


70 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


ing one Auretius to the office of reader. In justification of 
this measure he pleads the extraordinary virtues of the can- 
didate, the urgent necessity of the case, and the impossibility 
of consulting them, as he was wont to do on all such occa- 
sions.” Such, however, was the progress of episcopal usur- 
pation, that, by the middle of the fourth century, elections 
by the people were nearly lost; and from the beginning 
of the fifth century the bishop proceeded to claim the ap- 
pointment even of the presbyters, together with the absolute 
control of all ecclesiastical offices subordinate to his own 
episcopate. But down to the fourth century the bishops 
were not at liberty even to license one to perform the duties 
of a presbyter without first obtaining the approbation of 
the people. Such at least was still the rule in many places.™ 

Against these encroachments of ecclesiastical ambition 
and power the people continued to oppose a firm but inef- 
fectual resistance. They asserted, and in a measure main- 
tained, their primitive right of choosing their own spiritual 

teachers.” The usage of the churches of Africa has been 
already mentioned. Examples are given by Béhmer,® in 
evidence that this right was still recognized in the churches 
of Spain and of Rome.” Later still, in the fourth century, 


62 Τῇ ordinationibus clericis, Fratres carissimi, solemus vos ante 
consulere, et mores ac merita singulorum, communi consilio ponde- 
rare, Ep. 33. 

63 Pertsch. 4, Jahrhund. 8. 263. 

6 Riddle’s Eecl. Chron., A. Ὁ. 350, 400. Planck, Vol. I. p. 183. 

65 Gieseler, Vol. I. 272. Fora more full and detailed account of 
these changes of ecclesiastical policy and of the means by which they 
were introduced, the reader is referred to the first volume of J. G. 
Planck, Gesch. der Christ. kirch. Gesellschaftsverfassung, Bd. I. 149- 
212, 433, seq. 

66 Christ. kirch. Alterthumswissenschaft, I. 8. 144, seq. 

67 Presbyterio vel episcopatui, si eum cleri ac plebis vocaverit electio, 


ELECTIONS BY THE CHURCH. 71 


an instance occurred in the Eastern church, in Cappadocia, 
of the controlling influence of these popular elections. The 
people, after having been divided in their choice between 
different candidates, united their suffrages in the election 
of an individual high in office in the state, who had not 
even been baptized. He accordingly received this ordi- 
nance at the hands of the bishops present, and was duly 
invested with his office. In the Western church, the elec- 
tion of Martin of Tours, A. D. 375, above mentioned, was 
carried by the popular voice against the decided disappro- 
bation of the bishops present. Ambrose, bishop of Milan, 
A. D. 374, was appointed by the unanimous acclamation 
of the multitude, previously even to his baptism. On the 
other hand, there are on record instances in the fourth, and 
even in the fifth century, when the appointment of a bishop 
was effectually resisted by the refusal of the people to ratify 
the nomination of the candidate to a vacant see.” 

But notwithstanding all these examples in which the 
people successfully asserted their ancient right of suffrage, 
it became, as early as the fifth century, little else than an 
empty name. The elections degenerated into a tumultuous 


and unequal contest with a crafty and aspiring hierarchy, | 


who had found means so to trammel and control the elect- 
ive franchise as practically to direct at pleasure all eccle- 
siastical appointments. The rule had been established by 
decree of council, and often repeated, requiring the presence 
and unanimous concurrence of all the provincial bishops in 
the election and ordination of one to the office of bishop. 
This afforded them a convenient means of defeating any 
popular election, by an affected disagreement among them- 


non immerito societur.—Siricius, bishop of Rome, A. D. 884. Ep. I. 
ad Himer. c. 10. 

6 Greg. Naz., Orat. 10. Comp. Orat. 19, p. 308; 21, p. 377. Bing- 
ham, B. IV. c. 1, 33. Planck, I. 440, n. 10. 


oo 


72 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


selves. The same canonical authority had made the con- 
currence of the metropolitan necessary to the validity of any 
appointment. His veto was accordingly another efficient 
expedient by which to baffle the suffrages of the people, 
and to constrain them into a reluctant acquiescence in the 
will of the clergy.” 

Elections to ecclesiastical offices were also disturbed by 
the interference of secular influence from without, in con- 
sequence of that disastrous union of church and state which 
was formed in the fourth century under Constantine the 
Great. 

“During this century,” the fourth, “1. The emperors 
convened and presided in general councils; 2. Confirmed 
their decrees; 3. Enacted laws relative to ecclesiastical 
matters by their own authority; 4. Pronounced decisions 
concerning heresies and controversies; 5. Appointed bish- 
ops; 6. Inflicted punishment on ecclesiastical persons. 

“Hence arose complaints that the bishops had conceded 
too much to the emperors; while, on the other hand, some 
persons maintained that the emperors had left too much in 
the hands of the bishops. The bishops certainly did pos- 
sess too much power and influence, to the prejudice of the 
other clergy, and especially to the disadvantage of Chris- 
tians at large. 

“Thus the emperor and the bishops share the chief gov- 
ernment of the church between them. But the limits of 
their authority were not well defined. Great part of the 
power formerly possessed by the general body of Chris- 
tians, the laity, had passed into the hands of the civil goy- 
ernor.” ” 

Agitated and harassed by the conflict of these discordant 

69 Cone. Nie. c. 4. Cone. Antioch, c.1. Carthag. A. D. 390, ¢. 12. 
Planck, Vol. I. pp. 483-452. 

7 Riddle’s Chronology, pp. 70, 71. 


ELECTIONS BY THE CHURCH. ta 


elements, the popular assemblies for the election of men to 
fill the highest offices of the holy ministry became scenes of 
tumult and disorder that would disgrace a modern political 
canvass. “Go and witness the proceedings at our public 
festivals, especially those in which, according to rule, the 
elections of ecclesiastical officers are held. One supports 
one man; another, another; and the reason is, that all 
overlook that which they ought to consider: the qualifica- 
tions, intellectual and moral, of the candidate. Their at- 
tention is turned to other points, by which their choice is 
determined. One is in favor of a candidate of noble birth; 
another, of a man of wealth, who will not need to be sup- 
ported by the revenues of the church ; a third votes for one 
who has come over from some opposite party; a fourth 
gives his influence in favor of some relative or friend; 
while another is gained by the flatteries of a demagogue.” τ 
Repeated notices of similar disturbances occur in the eccle- 
siastical ‘writers of that period.” 

To correct these disorders, various but ineffectual expe- 
_dients were adopted at different times and places. The 

council of Laodicea, A. D. 361, c. 13, excluded the multi- 
tude, τοῖς ὄχλοις, the rabble, from taking part in the choice 
of persons for the sacred office, apparently with the design 
of preventing these abuses, without excluding the better 


τι Chrysostom, A. D. 398, De Sacerdot. Lib. 3, ο. 15. 

12 August., Ep. 22,37. Synessii, Ep. 67. Sidon, Apollinar. Lib. IV. 
Ep. 25, and other passages collected by Baronius, Annal. 308, n. 22, 
seq., and in Baluzii Miscell. tom. 2. Ammianus Marcellinus gives the 
following representation of the unholy contest of the two rival candi- 
dates, Damasus and Ursinus, for appointment to the episcopal see at 
Rome: “Supra humanum modum ad rapiendam episcopatus sedem 
ardentes, scissis studiis asperrime conflictabantur, ad usque mortis, 
vulnerumque discrimina adjumentis utriusque progressis. Et in cer- 
tatione superaverat Damasus, parte quae ei favebat instante.”—Lib. 
28, Ep. 3. : 

ω D 


74 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


portion of the laymen from a participation in the elections. 
The expedient, however, was of little avail. 

In the Latin Church, and especially in that of Africa, an 
attempt was made to restore order and simplicity in these 
elections by means of interventors, or visitors, whose duty it 
was to visit the vacant diocese and influence the clergy and 
people to harmonize their discordant interests, that thus the 
way might be prepared for a quiet and regular election. 
By this means the visitor had a fair opportunity, as Bing- 
ham justly remarks, “to ingratiate himself with the people 
and promote his own interests among them, instead of those 
of the church.” * This measure, though supported by Sym- 
machus,” in the sixth century, and by Gregory the Great,” 
failed to produce the desired effect, and seems neither to 
have been generally adopted nor long continued. 

Justinian, in the sixth century, sought, with no better 
success, to remedy the evils in question by limiting the 
elective franchise to a mixed aristocracy composed of the 
clergy and the chief men of the city. These were jointly to 
nominate three candidates, declaring under oath that in 
making the selection they had been influenced by no sinis- 
ter motive. From these three the ordaining person was to 
ordain the one whom he judged best qualified.” But it was 
not defined who should be included among the chief men, 
and the result was the loss of the people’s rights and an in- 
crease of the factions which the measure was intended to 
prevent. The council of Arles, A. D. 452, ο. 54, in like 
manner ordered the bishops to nominate three candidates, 
from whom the clergy and the people should make the 
election; and that of Barcelona, A. D. 599, c. 3, ordered 


73 Book II. Ὁ 15, 1. Comp. Book IV. ec. 11, 2 7. 

14 Ep. 5, α. 6. % Ep. Lib. 9, Ep. 16. 

7% Justin., Novell. 123, c. 1, 187, c. 2d. Cod. Lib. 1, tit. 3. De 
Episcop. leg. 42. 


ELECTIONS BY THE CHURCH. 75 


the clergy and people to make the nomination, and the 
metropolitan and bishops were to determine the election 
by lot. 

But even these ineffectual efforts to restore in some meas- 
ure the right of the people, sufficiently show to what extent 
it was already lost. Indeed, the bishops had already as- 
sumed to themselves, in some instances, the independent 
and exclusive right of appointing spiritual officers.” The 
emperor Valentinian III. complains of Hilary of Arles that 
he unworthily ordained some in direct opposition to the will 
of the people; and that, when they refused those whom they 
had not chosen, he collected an armed body, and by mili- 
tary power forcibly thrust into office the ministers of the 
gospel of peace.” Leo the Great, A. D. 450, asserts the 
right of the people to elect their spiritual rulers.” 

The government of the church, from a pure democracy, 
had changed first into an ambitious aristocracy, and then 
into a more oppressive oligarchy, which, assuming practically 
the sentiment of a crafty tyrant, οὐχ ἀγαϑὸν πολυχοιρανίη," 
directed its assaults against that most sacred principle both 
of civil and religious liberty—the right of every corporate 
body to choose its own rulers and teachers. This extinction 
of religious freedom was not effected in the church univer- 
sally at the same time, nor in every place by the same 
means. Oppressed by violence, overreached by stratagem, 
or awed into submission by superstition, the churches sev- 
erally yielded the contest at different and somewhat distant 


ΤΊ Sidon, Apollinar. Lib. IV. Ep. 25. 

18. Valentinian III. Nov. XXIV. ad calcem Cod. Theodos. 

9 Qui praefecturus omnibus, ab omnibus eligatur. Ep. 89. Comp. 
Ep. 84, c. 5. 

* Tliad, II. 204, Paraphrased by Pope in the following lines: 


Be silent, wretch, and think not here allowed 
That worst of tyranis, an usurping crowd.—PoPE. 


76 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


intervals. In Rome the rights of the people were recog- 
nized under Coelestin, A. D. 422, and Leo the’ Great, 
A. D. 440, which, as we have seen, Justinian attempted to 
restore in the century following. In Gaul these rights 
were not wholly lost until the fifth,” and even the sixth 
century.” In the East, Proclus, ordained by the bishops, 
was rejected by the people A. D. 426. 

The doctrine that to the clergy was promised a divine 
guidance from the Spirit of God had its influence also in 
completing the subjugation of the people. This vain con- 
ceit, by ceaseless repetition on the part of bishops and coun- 
cils, became an unquestionable dogma of the chureh. Once 
established, it had great influence in bringing the people 
into passive submission to their spiritual oppressors. Re- 
sistance to such an authority under the infallible guidance 
of God’s Spirit was rebellion against high Heaven, which 
the laity had not the impiety to maintain. 

“Thus everything was changed in the church. At the 
beginning it was a society of brethren; and now an absolute 
monarchy is reared in the midst of them. All Christians 
were priests of the living God, 1 Pet. ii. 9, with humble 
pastors for their guidance. But a lofty head is uplifted 
from the midst of these pastors. A mysterious voice utters 
words full of pride; an iron hand compels all men, small 
and great, rich and poor, freemen and slaves, to take the 
mark of its power. The holy and primitive equality of 
souls is lost sight of. Christians are divided into two 
strangely unequal classes. On the one side a separate 
class of priests daring to usurp the name of the church and 
claiming to be possessed of peculiar privileges in the sight 
of the Lord. On the other, timid flocks, reduced to a blind 


ANT p. 2, Ὁ: 2. 


62 Sidon, Apollinar. Lib. IV. Ep. 28. 
88 Conc. Orleans, A. D. 549, ce. 11. 


? 


ELECTIONS BY THE CHURCH. 77 


and passive submission ; a people gagged and silenced, and 
delivered over to a proud caste.” * 

The interference of the secular power with ecclesiastical 
appointments has been already mentioned. The civil mag- 
istrate often exercised the same arbitrary power in these 
matters which the priesthood had usurped over the people, 
so that the oppressor became in turn the oppressed. This 
secular interference began with Constantine. Both in the | 
Eastern and the Western church it was often the means of 
disturbing and overruling the appointment of ecclesiastical 
officers, and finally itself completed the extinction of relig- 
ious liberty. Valentinian III, A. D. 445, for example, 
enacted that all bishops of the Western empire should obey 
the bishop of Rome, and should be bound to appear before 
him at his summons.” Constantius appointed Liberius to 
be bishop of Rome A. D. 355, and the Gothic kings in the 
sixth century exercised the same arbitrary power over the 
churches of France and Spain.” 

In the Eastern church, Theodosius I. also appointed Nec- 
tarius bishop of Constantinople A. D. 381; and Theodo- 
sius II., in the same summary manner, appointed Proclus, 
A. D. 454, to succeed Maximian in the same place. Of 
the vehemence with which the church sometimes protested 
against these encroachments of secular power, we have a 
remarkable example in the sixth canon of the council of 
Paris, A. D. 557. “Seeing that ancient custom and the 
regulations of the church are neglected, we desire that no 
bishop be consecrated against the will of the citizens. And 
only such persons shall be considered eligible to this dignity 
who may be appointed not by command of the prince, but 


* TY Aubigné’s Hist. of the Reformation, I. p. 31. 

8 Riddle’s Eccl. Chron. p. 103. 

86 Simonis, Vorlesungen tiber die christlichen Allerthtimer, p. 106. 
81 Bbhmer’s Alterthumswissenschaft, Vol. I. p. 151. 


La - 


(* 


78 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


by the election of the people and clergy; which election 
must be confirmed by the metropolitan and the other bish- 
ops of the province. Any one who may enter upon this 
office by the mere authority of the king shall not be recognized 
by the other bishops; and if any bishop should recognize 
him, he must himself be deposed from his office.” * The 
eighth council of Rome also, A. D. 853, forbade, on pain 

of excommunication, “all lay persons whatsoever, even 
princes themselves, to meddle in the election or promotion 
of any patriarch, metropolitan, or any other bishop whatever, 
declaring withal, that it is not fit that lay persons should 
have anything at all to do in these matters; it becoming 
them rather to be quiet, and patiently to attend until such 
time as the election of the bishop who is to be chosen be 
regularly finished by the college of the church.” ἢ 

Such demands for the institution of apostolical and canon- 
ical elections, as they were called,” were, however, but rarely - 
made, and never with success. The clergy were brought 
to bow to a usurpation more absolute and despotic than 
that by which they had at first wrested from the laity those 
rights which, in their turn, they were reluctantly compelled 
to resign to the secular power, until at length the pope, that 
prince of tyrants, became the supreme head of all power, 
whether ecclesiastical or secular. Innocent III., at the 
close of the twelfth century, described himself as “the suc- 
cessor of St. Peter, set up by God to govern not only the 

88 Conc. Paris, c. 8. 

ὅ9 Neminem laicorum principum, vel Potentum semet inserere elec- 
tioni vel promotioni Patriarchae, vel Metropolitae, aut cujuslibet epis- 
copi, ete., praesertim ctim nullam in talibus potestatem quenquam 
potestativorum, vel ceterorum laicorum habere conveniat, sed potits 
silere, ac attendere sibi, usque quo regulariter 4 collegio ecclesiae sus- 
cipiat finem electio futuri pontificis—Conc. 8, Con. 12, t. 3, Cone. p. 
282. 


90 Gregory Naz. Orat. 21. 


- 


ELECTIONS BY THE CHURCH. 79 


church, but the whole world. As God,” said he, “has 
placed two great luminaries in the firmament, the one to 
rule the day and the other to give light by night, so has he 
established two great powers, the pontifical and the royal ; 
and as the moon receives her light from the sun, so does 
royalty borrow its splendor from the papal authority !”’ 


REMARKS. 


The right of suffrage involves all the great principles of 
a popular government. The rights and privileges belong- 
ing to such a government the apostles, under the guidance 
of wisdom from on high, studiously sought to protect in 
framing the constitution which they gave to the churches ; 
as the following remarks may serve to show: 


1. The right of suffrage is the first element of a popular 
government in the church. 

The right to elect our rulers and teachers presupposes 
the right to adopt our own form of government, to frame 
our constitution, to enact our laws, to exercise the preroga- 
tives and enjoy the privileges of a free and independent 
body. The enjoyment of this right constitutes freedom ; 
the absence of it, slavery. All just government is based 
on the participation or consent of the governed. 


2. The right to elect their own pastors and teachers is 
the inherent right of every church. 

If it be true that all men are endowed by their Creator 
with certain inalienable rights, among which are “ life, lib- 
erty and the pursuit of happiness,” then much more is lib- 
erty of conscience and the pursuit of future blessedness the 
inherent, inalienable right of man. What is the life that 
now is to that which is to come? or the happiness of earth 


80 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


to the bliss of heaven? Such are the religious to the civil 
rights of any people, all of which are involved in the enjoy- 
ment of the elective franchise, and are lost to a disfranchised 
laity. This consideration was lately urged in the hearing 
of the writer, with great pertinency and force, by the Mar- 
quis of Breadalbane, in the House of Lords, on a motion 
relating to the religious liberty of the church of Scotland. 
“The choice of a pastor is really a measure of more import- 
ance, and, by the members of that church is regarded as 
an event more interesting, than the election of a member of 
Parliament; for it affects their religious interests—interests 
to them and to their children high as Heaven and lasting 
as eternity.” 


3. The right of suffrage preserves a just balance of power 
between the lay members of the church and the clerical 
order—between the laity and the clergy. 

The sacred office of the clergy, coupled with learning and 
talents, gives them, under any form of government, a con- 
trolling influence. If to all this be added the exclusive 
right of making and executing the laws, and of electing the 
officers, the balance of power between the clergy and the 
people is destroyed. The restraints and checks which the 
clergy ought to feel against the exercise of arbitrary power 
are removed. The history of the church shows that the 
dangerous prerogatives of prelatical power cannot with 
safety be entrusted to any body of men, however great or 
good. Accordingly, as in all free governments, the sove- 
reign power is vested in the people, so in the primitive 
church, this great principle of religious as well as of civil 
liberty was carefully observed. The people were made the 
depositaries of the sovereign power. The enactment of the 
laws and the appointment of their officers belonged to them.” 

%! Riddle, Eccl. Chr. p. 13, 


ELECTIONS BY THE CHURCH. 81 


4, The loss of this right brings with it the extinction of 
religious liberty. 

The free church of Scotland, by their secession, had the 
magnanimity to resign the heritage of their ancestors and 
go out from the sanctuary where their fathers worshiped, 
taking joyfully the spoiling of their goods rather than sub- 
mit to the loss of their religious rights. In the manifesto 
which they published as their declaration of independence, 
they complain that their religious liberty has been invaded 
by the civil courts; whereas the church of Christ is, and 
of right ought to be, free, and independent of all spiritual 
jurisdiction from the state. We subjoin an extract from 
this manifesto, which clearly sets forth the wrongs that they 
must suffer under this spiritual bondage to which they no- 
bly refused to bow: 

(a) “That the courts of the church as now established, 
and members thereof, are liable to be coerced by the civil 
courts in the exercise of their spiritual functions; and in 
particular in their admission to the office of the holy min- 
istry, and the constitution of the pastoral relation, and that 
they are subject to be compelled to intrude ministers on 
reclaiming congregations in opposition to the fundamental 
principles of the church, and their views of the word of 
God, and to the liberties of Christ’s people. 

(6) “ That the said civil courts have power to interfere 
with and interdict the preaching of the gospel, and admin- 
istration of ordinances as authorized and enjoined by the 
church courts of the establishment. 

(c) “That the said civil courts have power to suspend 
spiritual censures pronounced by the church courts of the 
establishment against ministers and probationers of the 
church, and to interdict their execution as to spiritual 
effects, functions and privileges. 

(d) “That the said civil courts have power to reduce and 

D # 


82 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


set aside the sentences of the church courts of the establish- 
ment, deposing ministers from the office of the holy minis- 
try, and depriving probationers of their license to preach 
the gospel, with reference to the spiritual states, functions 
and privileges of such ministers and probationers, restoring 
them to the spiritual office and status of which the church 
had deprived them. 

(6) “ That the said civil courts have power to determine 
on the right to sit as members of the supreme and other 
judicatories of the church by law established, and to issue 
interdicts against sitting and voting therein, irrespective of 
the judgment and determination of the said judicatories. 

(f) “That the said civil courts have power to supersede 
the majority of a church court of the establishment in re- 
gard to the exercise of its spiritual functions as a church 
court, and to authorize the minority to exercise the said 
functions, in opposition to the court itself and to the supe- 
rior judicatories of the establishment. 

(g) “That the said civil courts have power to stay pro- 
cesses of discipline pending before courts of the church by 
law established, and to interdict such courts from proceed- 
ing therein. 

(h) “That no pastor of a congregation can be admitted 
into the church courts of the establishment and allowed to 
rule as well as to teach, agreeably to the institution of the 
office by the Head of the church, nor to sit in any of the 
judicatories of the church, inferior or supreme, and that no 
additional provision can be made for the exercise of spirit- 
ual discipline among members of the church, though not 
affecting any patrimonial interests, and no alteration intro- 
duced in the state of pastoral superintendence and spiritual 
discipline in any parish without the coercion of a civil 
court. 

“All which jurisdiction and power on the part of the 


ELECTIONS BY THE CHURCH. 83 


said civil courts severally above specified, whatever pro- 
ceedings may have given occasion to its exercise, is, in our 
opinion, in itself inconsistent with Christian liberty—with 
the authority which the Head of the church hath conferred 
on the church alone.” 


5. The free exercise of the elective franchise is one of the 
most effectual means of guarding against the introduction 
of unworthy men into the ministry. 

The common people best know the private character of 
the minister. They have a deep interest in it. They seek 
the spiritual welfare of themselves and their children in the 
selection of their pastor. These are precisely the considera- 
tions assigned for continuing to the people the right of elec- 
tion in the ancient church, after the rise of episcopacy.” 

On the contrary, he who has a living at his disposal is 
often ignorant of the true character of him who seeks a pre- 
ferment. A thousand sinister motives may bias his judg- 
ment. He may be the most unsuitable man possible for 
such a trust.” In a word, the curse of a graceless ministry 


% Tt was, according to Cyprian, a divine tradition and apostolical 
custom, observed by the African church and throughout almost all 
the provinces, that the election is to be performed in the presence of 
the people of the place, who fully know every man’s life, and in their 
very intimate acquaintance have carefully observed his habitual con- 
versation. Episcopus deligatur, plebe praesente, quae singulorum vi- 
tam plenissime novit, et uniuscujusque actum de ejus conversatione 
perspexerit. . . Coram omni synagoga jubet Deus constitui sacerdo- 
tem, id est, instruit atque ostendit ordinationes sacerdotales nonnisi, 
sub populi assistentis conscientia fieri opportere ut, plebe praesente, vel 
delegantur malorum crimina, vel bonorum merita praedicentur, . . . Quod 
utique idciro tam diligenter et caute, conyocata plebe, tota gerebatur, 
ne quis ad altaris ministerium, vel ad sacerdotalem locum mengaua 
obreperet.—Cyprian, Ep. 68, ο. 4, 5. 

98 Tracts for the Times, No. 59, p. 413. 


84 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


has ever rested upon the church, to a greater or less extent, 
wherever they have not enjoyed the right of electing their 
own pastors. The rich and quiet livings of an establish- 
ment, especially if coupled with the authority, the distinc- 
tion and emoluments of the episcopal office, will ever be an 
object of ambition to worldly men. “ Make me a bishop,” 
said an ancient idolater, “make me a bishop, and I will 
surely be a Christian.” 


6. The free enjoyment of the elective franchise is one of 
the best means of guarding the church against the inroads 
of error. | 

The Puseyism of the day is a delusion of the priesthood. 
The writer has often been assured in England that few, com- 
paratively, of the common people are led away by it. And 
in this country we have lately seen the laity nobly strug- 
gling to resist diocesan despotism. So it has ever been; 
the delusions and heresies that have overrun the church 
have originated with the clergy.** In a ministry hav- 
ing no dependence upon the people will be found, if any- 
where, irreligious and dangerous men, who, caring little for 
the real interests of their flocks, will substitute their own 
delusions ® for those simple truths which an intelligent and 


94 “Tf you were to take the great mass of the people of England, you 
would find a burst of righteous indignation against them (the Tract- 
arians). They would say, If we are to have popery, let us have hon- 
est old popery at once. If you are right, you do not go far enough; 
and if you are wrong, you go too far.’—Rev. Mr. Stowell, cited in Let- 
ters to the Laity, p. 34. Comp. Jerome Hieron. on Hos. ix. Vol. 6. 
Ed. Basil. 1537, p. 40. 

9 “ When the prerogative and pre-eminence of any single person 
in the church began to be in esteem, not a few who failed in their 
attempts of attaining it, to revenge themselves on the church, made it 
their business to invent and propagate pernicious heresies. So did 
Thebuthis, at Jerusalem, Euseb., lib. 4, cap. 22, and Valentinus, Ter- 
τ]. adv. Val., cap. 4, and Marcion, at Rome, Epiphan. Haeres, 42. 


ELECTIONS BY THE CHURCH. 85 


virtuous people delight to hear, and which a godly ministry 
would desire to preach. Leave, then, the choice of the 
clergyman in the hands of the people. They will most 
carefully seek for one who is sound in the faith and devoted 
to the sacred work; they will soonest reject one who may 
seek to pervert the truth of God. Upon the laity alone 
can we rely for the appointment of ministers who shall be 
the best defenders of the faith by the authority of their 
learning and the piety of their lives. 


7. The right of suffrage promotes mutual attachment be- 
tween pastor and people, and the spiritual edification of the 
church. 

The people receive instruction with affectionate interest 
and confidence from the lips of the preacher whom they 
have appointed over themselves, the man of their own 
choice; while he in turn speaks to them in the fullness and 
confidence of reciprocal love. On the other hand, the min- 
istrations of a priesthood which is imposed upon a people 
are felt to be a hireling service, in which neither speaker 
nor hearer can have special interest. 


Finally. It produces the most efficient ministry. 

This is a general conclusion, drawn from the foregoing 
considerations, and a position established by the whole his- 
tory of the church. It contradicts all history and all the 


Montanus fell into his dotage on the same account; so did Novatianus 
at Rome, Euseb. lib. 6, cap. 48, and Arius at Alexandria. Hence is 
that censure of them by Lactantius, lib. 4, cap. 30: ‘Ii quorum fides 
fuit lubrica, cum Deum nosse se et colere simularent, augendis opibus 
et honori studentes, affectabant maximum sacerdotium, et a potioribus 
victi, secedere cum suffragatoribus maluerunt, quam eos ferre praepo- 
sitos quibus concupierant ipsi ante praeponi.”—Owen, Works, Vol. 
XX. p. 169. 
8 


86 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


principles of human conduct to suppose that an independent 
establishment, in which the priesthood are settled down at 
ease in their livings, can have the efficiency and moral 
power of a clergy the tenure of whose office depends upon 
their activity and usefulness. 


CHAPTER. V. 
DISCIPLINE BY THE CHURCHES. 


THE discipline of the primitive church was administered 
by each body of believers collectively; and continued to be 
under their control until the third or fourth century. About 
this period the simple and efficient discipline of the primi- 
tive church was exchanged for a complicated and oppres- 
sive system of penance administered by the clergy. But 
the church itself possesses the only legitimate authority for 
the administration of discipline. Its members have the 
right to enact their own laws, and to prescribe such con- 
ditions of membership with themselves as they may judge 
expedient and agreeable to the word of God. The right to 
administer ecclesiastical discipline was guaranteed to the 
churches from their first organization under the apostles ; 
but was finally lost by the usurpation of the priesthood 
under the episcopal hierarchy. 


I. The right to administer ecclesiastical discipline was 
originally vested in the church itself. 

The argument in support of this proposition is derived— 

1. From the Scriptures. 

2. From the early Fathers. 

3. From the authority of modern ecclesiastical writers. 

4. From the fact that the entire government of the 
church was vested in that body itself. 

87 


88 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


1. The argument from Scripture. 

Our Lord himself is supposed to teach, in Matt. xviii. 
15-18, that the public discipline of offenders should be ad- 
ministered by the authority of the church. 

These instructions are understood to have been given 
prospectively, and to contain the rules by which the disci- 
pline of the Christian church should be administered. But 
whether given with reference to the Christian church which 
was about to be established, or designed to exhibit the 
proper mode of procedure in the discipline of the Jewish 
synagogue, they doubtless develop the principle on which 
ecclesiastical censure should be conducted under the Chris- 
tian dispensation. Vitringa has clearly shown that the 
directions of our Lord, in this instance, accord with the es- 
tablished usage of the synagogue, which was the pattern of 
the primitive church, both in its government and forms of 
worship. He has shown that this sentence was to be pro- 
nounced in accordance with a popular vote in public as- 
sembly; and that the same course of procedure was to be 
the rule of the Christian church. The church, therefore, 
like the synagogue,’ is the ecclesiastical court of impeach- 
ment for the trial of offences. If private remonstrance 
proves ineffectual, the case is to be brought before the church, 
to be adjudged by a public vote of that body, after the 
manner of the Jewish synagogue. 

This rule of discipline was also established in the Chris- 
tian church by apostolical authority. 

We have on record one instance of a trial before the 
church which was instituted by the command of the apostle 
Paul, and conducted throughout agreeably to his instrue- 
tions. A Christian convert in Corinth, and a member of 

1 Vitringa, De Synagoga Vet. Lib. 3. p. 1, ¢.9. Augusti, Denk- 
wiirdigkeiten, IX. S. 43, seq. Pfaff; De Originibus Juris Eccles. 
pe Jo. 


DISCIPLINE BY THE CHURCHES. 89 


the church which had recently been established in that city, 
had maintained an incestuous connection with his father’s 
wife. This shocking sin, unexampled even among the 
Gentiles, the apostle rebukes with righteous abhorrence. 
The transgressor ought to be put away from among them ; 
and, uniting with them as if present in their assembly con- 
vened for the purpose, Paul resolves to deliver him unto 
Satan, in the name, and with the power of the Lord Jesus 
Christ, ὁ. e., by the help and with the authority of the Lord. 
1 Cor. v. 3-5. 

Upon this passage we remark : 

(a) The decision was not an official act of the apostle, 
a sentence pronounced by his authority alone. It was the 
act of the church. Absent in body, but present in spirit 
with them when assembled together, the apostle pronounces 
his decision as if acting and co-operating with them. By this 
parenthetic sentence, “ When ye are gathered together, and 
my spirit,’ he indicates the intervention and co-operation 
of the church in the sentence pronounced upon the trans- 
eressor. “The apostle qualifies the earnestness with which 
he speaks in the third verse, by reference, first, to the au- 
thority of Christ, and secondly, to the co-operation of the 
church; agreeably to the republican spirit of ancient Chris- 
tianity, personating himself as present in spirit in their 
assembly.’ ‘When the apostle speaks of an excommuni- 
cation from the church, he regards himself as united in 
spirit with the whole church, 1 Cor. v. 4, setting forth the 
rule that their action is requisite in all such concerns of 
general interest.’” 
be himself the judge in such cases, submitting them to the 
church themselves: “What have I to do to judge them 


Even in this very chapter, he refuses to 


2 De Wette, Comment. ad locum. 
3 Neander, Allgem. Gesch. I. S. 292. Tr. I. 190. Comp. S. 350. 
Apost. Kireh: I, pp..313,/320. - Ir. 1. p. 170. 
8 * 


90 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


that are without?’ men of the world, “ Do not ye judge 
them that are within?’ members of the church. “ But 
them that are without God judgeth,” 
will judge, which is the approved reading. “ Therefore put 


zptvet, or rather zprvet, 


away from among yourselves that wicked person,” vs. 12, 13. 

The severe censure with which the apostle reflects upon 
the Corinthians for tolerating the offender so long, shows 
that the responsibility rested with them. They should have 
put away this offence from among them.* But if it was 
wholly the act of the apostle, why censure them for neglect- 
ing to do that which they had no right or authority to do? 
Are the members of the Episcopal Church blameworthy for 
the general neglect of discipline in their communion, while 
the clergy have the sole power of administering that disci- 
pline? Neither could the Corinthians deserve censure, 
unless they had authority to administer the discipline which 
they had negiected. Both here, and in 2 Cor. ii. 3-11, the 
apostle refers distinctly to their neglect in this matter. 

Again, in 2 Cor. ii. 6, he speaks of the excommunication 
as the act of the church. The punishment was inflicted, 
ὑπὸ τῶν πλειόνων, by the many, the majority. Bilroth para- 
phrases this in connection with the preceding verse, as 
follows: “ Whether he, or the offender, have caused grief 
to me, comes not into consideration. It is not that J must 
suffer for him, but you; at least, a part of you; for I will 
not be unjust, and charge you αὐ with having been indiffer- 
ent concerning his transgressions. Paul proceeds. still 
further, verse 6; he calls those who had reprehended the 
transgressor, the majority, who had condemned his vice and 
been grieved by it.” 

Once more, the apostle does not himself restore the trans- 
gressor, now penitent for his sin; but exhorts the Corinthians 
tu doit. But if the church had themselves the authority 


* Mosheim, Institutiones Majores, P. II. ¢. 3, 3 14. 


DISCIPLINE BY THE CHURCHES. 97 


to receive him again to their communion, had they not also 
the right of censure? “The punishment which they had 
extended over him, by excluding him from their com- 
munion, is declared to be sufficient, since he had reformed 
himself (on ἱχανόν, see Winer, p. 297). The apostle him- 
self, therefore, proposes, v. 7, that they should again treat 
him in a friendly manner, and comfort him, in order that 
he might not be worn away by over-much grief’? In v. 
10, again, he signifies his readiness to assent to their de- 
cisions; whom they forgive, he forgives also, and because 
they had forgiven him. 

(6) This sentence was an actual excommunication ; not a 
judicial visitation analogous to that upon Simon Magus, 
Acts xiii. 11. By this sentence the offender was removed 
from the church of Christ and reduced to his former con- 
dition as a heathen man. ‘This, according to the most ap- 
proved commentators, is the full meaning of the phrase, 
παραδοῦναι τῷ Xatava. The world, in the angelology of the 
Jews, and agreeably to the Scriptures, comprises two great. 
divisions: the kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of Satan. 
By this sentence of excommunication, the incestuous per- 
son is transferred from the visible kingdom of our Lord to 
the dominion of Satan, and in this sense delivered unto him. 

(6) The ultimate object of this discipline was the reformation 
of the offender; the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit 
may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. It was not a 
penance, an arbitrary, prelatical infliction of pains and pen- 
alties, but a disciplinary process for the spiritual benefit of 
the individual. 

(d) It is questionable, perhaps, whether the sentence was 
accompanied with the judicial infliction of any disease what- 
ever. Many of the most respectable commentators under- 
stand by the delivering “to Satan for the destruction of the 


5 Bilroth, Comment. ad locum. 


92, THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


flesh,” the visitation of some wasting malady. The phrase- 
ology doubtless admits of such a construction, and the lan. 
guage of the apostle on other occasions seems to favor it. 
Comp. 1 Cor. xi. 830; 1 Tim. i. 20. But the consequences 
of this excommunication were of themselves sufficient, it 
may be, to justify this strong expression, the destruction of 
the flesh. To the Jews, under the old dispensation, and to 
primitive Christians under the new, the sentence of excom- 
munication was no light matter. It was a withering curse, 
a civil death. It involved a total exclusion from kindred, 
from society, from all those charities of life which Chris- 
tians were wont to reciprocate even with the heathen.® 
This construction, again, is given to the passage by com- 
mentators of high authority. 

But is any bodily disease intended? Flesh, σάρξ, often 
denotes the carnal propensities, the sinful appetites and pas- 
sions, Gal. v. 17,.19 3 vi.-8; Eph. 1. 3; Col. iL ii) ime 
subjugation, the putting away of these, is distinctly implied 
in the ultimate design of this discipline—the salvation of the 
spirit—and is not this all that is intended in the ὄλεϑρον 
τῆς σαρχός, the destruction of the flesh? However that may 
be, it is not essential to our present purpose. Whatever 
may have been to the guilty person the consequences of the 
sentence of excommunication, that sentence proceeded from 
the church, acting at the suggestion and with the advice of 
the apostle. 

6 Josephus relates that those who were excommunicated from the 
Fssenes often died after a miserable manner, and were therefore, from 
motives of compassion, received again when at the point of death. 
In this instance, the oath of the Essenes obliged them to refuse such 
food as the excommunicated person might find; but was not the case 
equally bad when all were bound not only to refuse him subsistence, 
but every expression of kindness and charity? Comp. Jalin’s Archi- 
ology, 2528; Horne’s Introduction, B. II. c. 8, ὁ 4; Neander, All- 
gem. Gesch. I. 373, 2d edit.; Tr. I. p. 218. 


DISCIPLINE BY THE CHURCHES. 93 


An excommunication somewhat similar is described 
briefly in 1 Cor. xvi. 22: “If any man love not the Lord 
_ Jesus Christ, let him be anathema maran-atha.” The word 
anathema corresponds to the Hebrew ὉΠ, which denotes 
either anything given up to God or devoted to destruction. 
It was a form of excommunication familiar to the Jews, 
which was pronounced publicly upon the offender, and ex- 
cluded him from all communion whatever with his country- 
men.’ Such was the anathema, a solemn sentence of excom- 
munication, publicly pronounced upon the transgressor. The 
phrase Maran-atha is the Syro-Chaldaic pny siq9, The Lord 
cometh, i. e., to judgment. The whole, taken together, im- 
plies that the transgressor is separated from the communion 
of the church, and abandoned to the just judgment of God. 
All that the apostle seems to demand of the Corinthians 
respecting the offender is, that they should exclude him 
from their society, so that he might cease to be a member 
of the church, verses 12, 15. He pronounces no further 
judgment upon him, but expressly refers to the future judg- 
ment of God. 

In review, therefore, of these important passages, several 
things are worthy of particular remark : 

(a) The sentence of exclusion proceeded not from the 
pastor of the church, but from the church collectively. 

(6) The excommunication is styled a punishment, ἐπετεμέα. 
But the apostle distinguishes it both from the civil penalties 
which attended the ban of excommunication among the 
Jews and from the judicial sentence of God, regarding the 
whole transaction as an ecclesiastical act intended to ex- 
press just abhorrence of the crime and merited censure 
of it. 

(y) The reason assigned for the restoration of the offender 


7 Jahn’s Archiology, ᾧ 258. Du Pin, De Antiqua Disciplina, Diss, 
3, c. 2, p. 272. 


94 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


was repentance—A%z7— sorrow for his sin, to which the apos- 
tle probably refers in a subsequent passage, vil. 10, when 
he says, “Godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation 
not to be repented of.” 

(δ) He was restored to the communion and fellowship of 
the church, as he had been excluded, by the public consent, 
the vote of that body. In accordance with these views, the 
apostle exhorts the Corinthians to separate from them any 
other immoral person, any man that is called a brother, 
whether he be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a 
railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, 1 Cor. v.11. And 
the Galatians he exhorts to restore, in the spirit of meek- 
ness, one who may have been overtaken in fault. Now 
this right of judging and acting, both in the expulsion of 
the immoral and the restoration of the penitent, obviously 
vests in the church the power of ecclesiastical censure.® 
Comp. 2 Thess. ili. 14 and Rom. xvi. 17. 

It was therefore the privilege of the apostolical church 
to administer its own discipline—a right which accords with 
every just principle of religious liberty, while it clearly 
illustrates the popular character of the primitive constitu- 
tion of the church. For, as in their elections so in their 
discipline, the apostolical churches were doubtless in har- 
mony one with another, and may justly be presumed to 
have observed the same rules of fellowship. Based on the 
same principles and governed by similar laws, one example 
may suffice to illustrate the policy of all.® 


§ Rights of the Church, by Tindal, p. 39. 

9 On this whole subject, comp. Vitringa, De Synagoga, Lib. 8, p. 1, 
c. 10; Pertsch, Kirch. Hist. I. 4to. 5. 469, seq. ; Recht. Eccles. Kirch- 
enbanns, Vorrede, Ausgab, 1738, 4, C. M. Pfaff, De Originibus Juris 
Eccl. pp. 10-13; Neander’s Allgem. Gesch. 8. 349, seq., 71, 98, ete. ; 
Dr. W. D. Killen’s Ancient Church. p. 223, seq.; Lange and Schaff on 
Apost. Ch, 


DISCIPLINE BY THE CHURCHES. 95 


The following passages may be consulted in relation to 
the duty of the church to maintain its watch and discipline 
over its members: 2 Thess. 11. 14; Matt. xvii. 15-17; 
Rom. xvi. 17; Gal. ii. 11, seq.; 2 Epist. John 10; 1 Tim. 
i. 20; Rev. ii. 14, 20. 


2. Argument from the early fathers 

Few passages, comparatively, occur in their writings re- 
lating immediately to the point under consideration. But 
enough can be derived from them to show that the church 
continued for two or three centuries to regulate her own 
discipline by the will of the majority, as expressed either 
by a direct popular vote or through a representative dele- 
gation chosen by the people. 

Clemens Romanus, the only apostolical father belonging 
strictly to the first century, and contemporary with several 
of the apostles, throughout his epistle treats the church of 
Corinth as the only court of censure. He addresses his 
epistle, A. D. 68 or 98, not to the bishop, but to the entire 
body of believers. This circumstance is worthy of particu- 
lar notice, inasmuch as the epistle is written in relation to 
a case of discipline, and not to enforce the practical duties 
of religion. ‘The church at Corinth was recognized as hay- 
ing authority in the case under consideration. 

Clement in his epistle reflects severely upon the Corinth- 
ians for their treatment of their religious teachers, some of 
whom they had rejected from the ministry. To do this 
without good reason, he assures them, “would be no sma!l 
sin” in them,” and earnestly exhorts them to exercise a 
charitable, orderly and submissive spirit. But he offers no 
hint that they had exceeded the limits of their legitimate 
authority, even in deposing some from the ministry; on the 
contrary, he recognizes the right of the church to regulate, 


10 Chauncey’s Episcopacy, pp. 77, 78. 


06 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


at their discretion, their own discipline, and the duty of all 
to acquiesce in it. ‘“ Who among you is generous? who is 
compassionate? who has any charity? Let him say whether 
this sedition, this contention, and these schisms be on my 
account. I am ready to depart, to go whithersoever you 
please, and to do whatsoever ye shall command me, only let 
the flock of Christ be in peace with the ministers that are 
set over them.” ” 

The above passage is twice quoted by Chancellor King 
in proof that the laity were members of the ecclesiastical 
court for the trial of offences, “and judges therein.” ” 
“Clement recommends those on whose account the dissen- 
sions had arisen, to retire and to submit to the will of the 
majority.” ’ These censures to which Clement urges them 
to submit, he characterizes as “the commands of the multi- 
tude, ta πρυστασσόμενα ὑπὸ Tod TAA HOU.” 

The epistle of Polyearp to the Philippians, A. D. 117- 
120, affords us, indirectly, a similar example of the deport- 
ment of the church toward a fallen brother. This venera- 
ble father was greatly afflicted at the defection of Valens, 
a presbyter of that church, who had fallen into some sean- 
dalous error. But he entreats the charitable consideration 
of the church toward the offender, urging them to exercise: 
moderation toward him; and on similar occasions to seek 
to reclaim the erring, and to call them back, in the spirit 
of kindness and Christian charity." The address and ex- 
hortation, throughout, proceed on the supposition that the 
duty of mutual watchfulness belongs to the brethren of the 


Ki διὰ ἐμὲ στάσις καὶ epic καὶ σχίσματα ἐκχωρῶ, ἄπειμι, ov ἐὰν 
βούλησϑε, καὶ ποιῶ τὰ προστασσόμενα ὑπὸ τοῦ πλήϑους.---ἘΡ. ad Cor. ο. 
δ4. Comp. 2 44. 

12, Primitive Church, B. I. Ὁ: 11.92.0. 7, 2.2. 

13 Riddle, Christian Antiquities, p. 9. 14 Comp. Ep. c. 11. 


DISCIPLINE BY THE CHURCHES. 97 


church collectively. It is not, however, a clear case of 
church discipline, though this may be implied. 

At the beginning of the second century, A. D. 103 or 104, 
Pliny the Younger instituted a severe examination, by tor- 
ture and the rack, into the character of the Christians in 
his province in Asia Minor. As the result, he reports to 
the Emperor Trajan, that under this terrible alternative 
some abjured their profession as Christians; others, with 
inflexible obstinacy, maintained it; but all of those who 
denied their faith affirmed that the sum of their fault or 
error was, that they were accustomed, on a stated day, to 
assemble before the dawn of the morning to sing a hymn 
to Christ as to God, and to bind themselves by an oath 
neither to commit theft, robbery or adultery, nor to swerve 
from the faith or disown a trust committed to them.” "ἢ 

The report of Eusebius respecting these covenant vows 
is that these Christians, “for the purpose of maintaining 
their discipline, prohibited adultery, murder, overreaching, 
fraud, and all crimes like them.” ᾽ 

Tertullian also represents Pliny to have said, that besides 
their obstinacy in refusing to offer sacrifices, he discovered 
nothing more concerning their secret vows than that they 
were accustomed to meet before the dawn of the morning 
to sing to Christ and to God; and to enter into a mutual 
disciplinary covenant, forbidding murder, adultery, fraud, 
perfidy and other crimes.” ἡ 


15 Omnes affirmabant autem hunc esse summum vel culpae suae, vel 
erroris, quod essent soliti, stato die, ante lucem convenire, carmenque 
Christo, quasi Deo dicere secum invicem; seque sacramento, non in 
scelus aliquod, obstringere, sed ne furta, ne latrocinia, ne adulteria, 
committerent ne fidem, fallerent, depositum appellati abnegarent. 
Epist. ad Traj. 

16 Hist. Book ITT. 33. 

1 Allegans, praetor obstinationem non sacrificandi nihil aliud se de 

9 


98 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


Tertullian wrote his Apology for the Christians a hun- 
dred years after these persecutions in Bithynia, at the be- 
ginning of the third century. From him we learn that the 
discipline of the church remained unchanged at this period, 
the members of the church sustaining the same covenant 
relations, exercising the same mutual watchfulness and 
-mInaintaining the same discipline in the exclusion of the 
unworthy from their fellowship and communion. “We 
Christians are a confederate body by our agreement in re- 
ligion, our uniformity in discipline and in the bonds of 
hope. From the Sacred Oracles we nourish our faith and 
inspire our hopes; and, by inculeating the precepts of re- 
ligion, enforce our discipline. There are administered also 
admonitions, reproofs and the divine censure. For it is re- 
garded as a transaction of great solemnity in the sight of 
God, and a most impressive anticipation of the future judg- 
ment, when one so sins as to be excluded from all fellowship 
in the prayers, the assemblies and the sacred communion 
of saints.” ' 

None can doubt that this divine sentence of excommuni- 
cation is the action of the church collectively. Certain 
approved elders preside, probati quique seniores praesident, 
acting in co-operation with the church. This authoritative 
action of the church becomes undeniably evident from the 
sacramentiscorum comperisse quam coetus antelucanos ad canendum 
Christo et Deo, et ad confoederandam disciplinam homicidium, adul- 
terium, fraudem, perfidiam et caetera scelera prohibentes.”’—A pol. ο. 2. 

18 Corpus sumus de conscientia religionis et disciplinae unitate et 
spei foedere...... Certe fidem, sanctis vocibus pascimus, spem eri- 
gimus, fiduciam figimus, disciplinam praeceptorum nihilominous in- 
culcationibus, densamus; ibidem etiam exhortationes, castigationes, 
et censura divina. Nam et judicatur magno cum pondere, ut apud 
certos de Dei conspectu; summumque futuri judicii praejudicium est, 
51 quis ita deliquerit ut, a communicatione orationis et conyentus et 
omnis sancti commercii relegetur.—A pol. 39. 


DISCIPLINE BY THE CHURCHES. 99 


example of Cyprian, who, while sternly defending his epis- 
copal prerogatives, does nothing without the counsel of the 
clergy and the consent of the people.” Bohmer has illus- 
trated this action of the church at great length in his in- 
comparable Dissertation on the confederate discipline of 
these primitive Christians.” 

Both Chancellor King,” and the “great Du Pin,”” 
though himself a Roman Catholic, cite the above passage as 
evidence that the discipline of the church continued to be 
administered, as from the beginning it had been, by public 
vote of the church; the clergy being understood to have a 
joint action and influence in their deliberations. 

On another occasion Tertullian remarks that the crimes 
of idolatry and of murder are of such enormity that the 
charity of the churches is not extended to such as have been 
guilty of these offences.” 

The authority of the church again is manifest in the case - 
of Alexander, A. D. 180-195, an impostor who sought to 
join himself to the faithful; but “the church of the place 
whence he sprang would not receive him because he was a 
robber.’ * 

The strict caution observed by the church in the admis- 
sion of members to their communion is fully described by 
Origen, who lived after Tertullian, near the close of the 
first half of the third century: “Strict inquiry is made into 
the life and carriage of the candidates, ἐξετάστειν τοῦς βιοῦς 


19 A primordio episcopatus mei statuerim nihil sine consilio vestro 
et sine, consensu plebis, mea privatim sententia gerere——FEpist. 5. 

0 Diss. III., de Confoederata Christianorum Disciplina. 

21 Prim. Christ. P. I. c. VII. 2 4. 

22 Du Pin’s Antiqua Disciplina, Diss. 3, ¢. 1. 

23 Neque idololatriae, neque sanguini pax ab ecclesiis redditur.— 
De Pudicit. c. 12. 

#4 Kuseb. Hist. B.-V.c. 18. 


100 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


χαὶ Tas aywyas τῶν προσιόντῶν, requiring of them repent- 
ance and a better life; then we admit them to our mys- 
teries.”” Again, in his second book, he says that “they 
make private and public examinations of such as present 
themselves, that they may guard their communion from 
such as indulge in forbidden offence.” “Toward trans- 
gressors their discipline is peculiarly severe, especially to- 
ward the licentious. On their repentance they are restored 
to the communion of the church, but never received to any 
ecclesiastical office.” This restoration is sought from the 
church, δεηδῆναι τῦυ ἐπι πάσης ἐχχλησίας, as being the party 
in whom this authority is vested. 

Cyprian, ever ready to assert the prerogatives of the 
bishop, uniformly recognizes and fully asserts the right of 
the church to direct in the discipline of its members. About 
the year 250, the emperor Decius issued an edict command- 
ing the Christians to sacrifice to the gods. To escape the 
requisitions and penalties of this edict, Cyprian, then bishop 
of Carthage, was compelled to fly for his life, and continued 
in exile about sixteen months. But many of his church, 
under the relentless persecution that ensued, yielded an ap- 
parent compliance with the emperor’s impious command. 
Others, without compliance, had the address to obtain a 
certain certificate from the prosecuting officer, which freed 
them from further molestation. All such persons, however, 
were denominated the lapsed, /apsi, and were excommuni- 
cated as apostates. The system of canonical penance, as it 
was called, was so far established at this time that this 
class of offenders were required to fulfill the forms of a pre- 


2 Contra Celsum, Lib. 8. 

26 Comp. Stillingfleet. Irenicum, p. 161, Phil. ed. Béhmer, pp. 
105-110. Comp. Chrysost. Comment. in Math., Tom. 13, pp. 612-613. 
Comp. Blondell. De jure plebis in regimine ecclesiastico, where 
are given many other authorities. 


DISCIPLINE BY THE CHURCHES. 101 


scribed and prolonged penance before they could be restored 
to the communion of the church. Many of the lapsed, 
touched with a sense of their guilt, pleaded for an abate- 
ment of the rigor of these austerities, and an earlier and 
easier return to the communion of the church. To this 
course a party in the church were, for various reasons, 
strongly inclined; and some were actually restored in the 
absence of the bishop. This irregularity was severely cen- 
sured by Cyprian, who often recognizes the right of the 
people to be a party in the deliberations and decisions re- 
specting them. The clergy who had favored this abuse, he 
says, “shall give an account of what they have done, to 
me, to the confessors,” and to the whole church.”* 

In a letter, addressed to the church, he says, “ When the 
Lord shall have restored peace unto us all, and we shall all 
have returned to the church again, we shall then examine 
all these things, you also being present and judging of then.” 
In the conclusion of the same epistle he adds, “ I desire then 
that they would patiently hear our counsel and wait for our 
return, that then, when many of us bishops shall have met 
together, we may examine the certificates and desires of the 
blessed martyrs, according to the discipline of the Lord, in 
the presence of the confessors, and according to your will.”™ 


27 “Tt was the privilege of the confessors, that is, of persons who had 
suffered torture, or received sentence of death, to give to any of the 
lapsed a written paper, termed a letier of peace ; and the bearer was 
entitled to a remission of some pay of the ecclesiastical discipline.”— 
Burton's History of the Church, chap. 15. 

8. Acturi et apud nos et apud confessores ipsos et apud plebem uni- 
versam causam suam, cum, Domino permittente, in sinum matris eccle- 
siae recolligi coeperimus.—£p. 10, al. 9. 

39. Cum, pace nobis omnibus a Domino prius data, ad ecclesiam re- 
gredi coeperimus, tune examinabuntur singula, praesentibus et judican- 
tibus vobis.—Audiant quaeso, patientur consilinm nostrum, expectent 
regressionem nostram; ut cum ad vos, per Dei misericordiam, veneri- 

9 ἃ 


109 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


In his epistle to his people at Carthage, in which he la- 
ments the schism of Felicissimus, he assures them that on 
his return, he with his colleagues will dispose of the case 
agreeably to the will of his people, and the mutual council of 
both clergy and people.” The two offending sub-deacons 
and acolytes, he declares, shall be tried, not only in the 
presence of his colleagues, but before the whole people.” The 
above and other similar passages are often cited in evidence 
of the agency which the people still continued, in the mid- 
dle of the third century, to exert in the administration of 
ecclesiastical censure.” Will any one presume to say, that 
in refusing to decide upon any case, or to exercise any au- 
thority, Cyprian only condescends kindly to regard the will 
of the people, without acknowledging their right to be con- 
sulted? Weask in reply, Is this the language and spirit 
of prelacy? Under such instructions as those of Cyprian, 
the church would learn but slowly the doctrine of passive 
obedience. 

Enough has been said to illustrate the usage of the 
church at Carthage. Between this church and that at 
Rome, under Cornelius, there was, at this time, the greatest 
harmony of sentiment in relation to the discipline of the 
ehurch. And, from the correspondence between the churches, 
which is recorded in the works of Cyprian, there is conclu- 


mus, convocati episcopi plures secundum Domini disciplinam, et con- 
fessorum, praesentiam et vestram quoque sententiam martyrum litteras 
et desideria examinare possimus.— Lp. 12, al. 11. 

30 Cum collegis meis, quibus praesentibus, secundum arbitrium 
quoque vestrum et omnium nostrum commune consilium, sicut semel 
placuit ea quae agenda sunt disponere pariter et limare poterimus.— 
Ep. 40. 

31 Non tantum cum collegis meis, sed cum plebe ipsa universa.— 
Ep. 34, al. 28. Crimina—publice a nobis et plebe cognoscerentur.— 
1}. 44, al. 41. 

* Comp. Daillé, Right Use of the Fathers, B. 2, ο. 6, pp. 328-330. 


DISCIPLINE BY THE CHURCHES. 103 


sive evidence that their polity was the same. This is so 
clearly asserted by Du Pin, that I shall dismiss this point 
by citing his authority. After making the extract from 
Tertullian, which has been given above, and others from 
Cyprian, similar to those which have already been cited, 
he adds, “ From whence it is plain, that both in Rome and 
at Carthage, no one could be expelled from the church, or 
restored again, except with the consent of the people.” 
This, according to the same author, was in conformity with 
apostolical precedent in the case of the incestuous person 
at Corinth.” 

Origen, again, of Caesarea in Palestine, speaks of the 
conviction of an offender before the whole church, ἐπὶ πασῆς 
τῆς ἐχχλησίας, as the customary mode of trial.* With the 
authority of Origen we may join that of Chrysostom at 
Constantinople. In commenting upon 1 Cor. v. 3-5, he 
represents the complaint of the apostle to be that the Corin- 
thians had not put away that wicked person from among 
them; “showing that this ought to be done without their 
teacher,” *® and that the apostle associates them with him- 
self, “that his own authority might not seem to be too 
great’ in the transaction. Theodoret also expresses much 
the same sentiments upon the passage under consideration.” 

These authorities are derived both from the Eastern and 

33 De Antiqua Disciplina, Diss. 3, pp. 248, 249. 

34 TI pdc¢ δὲ τὸ δοκοῦν σκληρὸν πρὸς τοὺς τὰ ἐλάττονα ἡμαρτηκότας, εἴποι 
τις ἂν ὅτι οὐκ ἔξεστι δίς ἑξῆς μὴ ἀκούσαντα, τὸ τρίτον ἀκούσαι ὡς διὰ τοῦτο 
μηκέτι εἷναι ὡς ἐϑνικὸν καὶ τελώνην, ἤ μηκέτι δεηϑῆναι τοῦ ἐπὶ πάσης τῆς 
éxxAnoiac.—Comment, in Matt., Tom. 13, p. 612. Comp. 613. 

35 Δεικνὺς ὅτι δὲ χωρὶς τοῦ διδασκάλου τὸ γενέσϑαι ἔδει iva μὴ δόξη 
πολλὴ εἶτ ἡ avdevtia.—Hom. 15, ad 1 Cor., Tom. 10, p. 126. 

36 Theodoret, Comment. ad locum, Opera, Tom. 10, p. 141. Comp. 
Blondell, De jure plebis in regimine ecclesiastico, where many other 
authorities are given. Comp. especially the masterly discussions of 
J. H. Béhmer, XII. Dissertationies Juris Ecclesiastici Antiqui. 


104 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


the Western churches. As ancient expositions of the apos- 
tolical rule, and as examples of the usage of the churches 
in the ages immediately succeeding that of the apostles, they 
indicate that throughout this period ecclesiastical discipline 
was administered in accordance with the will of the people, 
and by their decision. The bishop and clergy, instead of 
holding in their own grasp the keys of the kingdom of 
heaven, co-operated with the church in its deliberations; 
and acted as the official organ of the assembly in executing 
its decisions. Neither was the ban of the church wielded 
in terror, as it has often been by an arbitrary priesthood to 
accomplish their own sinister ends. 

The penitent was restored, also, in the spirit of kindness 
and Christian forgiveness, by the joint consent of the same 
body which had originally excluded him from its com- 
munion. 

This point deserves distinct consideration, as another in- 
dication of the religious liberty enjoyed by the church. 
Paul submitted to the church at Corinth the restoration of 
the offender whom they had excluded from their com- 
munion. Tertullian makes it the duty of the penitent to 
cast himself at the feet of the clergy, and kneeling at the 
altar of God, to seek the pardon and intercessions of all the 
brethren.” Cyprian, in the passage cited above, declares, 
that the lapsed, who had been excluded from the church, 
must make their defence before all the people, apud plebem 
universam. “It was ordained by an African synod, in the 
third century, that, except in danger of death, or of a sud- 
den persecution, none should be received unto the peace of 
the church, without the knowledge and consent of the people.” * 

37 Presbyteris advolvi, et caris [aris] Dei adgeniculari omnibus 
fratribus legationes deprecationis suae injungere.— De Poenitentia, c. 9. 

38 Cyprian, Epist. 59. The same fact is also asserted by Du Pin, in 
the passage quoted above. 


DISCIPLINE BY THE CHURCHES. 105 


Natalius, at Rome, in the first part of the third century, 
threw himself at the feet of the clergy and laity, and so be- 
wailed his faults that the church was moved with compassion 
for him, and with much difficulty he was received into its 
communion.” The same is related of one of the bishops, 
who was restored to the church at Rome, under Cornelius, 
to lay communion, “through the mediation of all the people 
then present.” ® Serapion, at Antioch, was also refused ad- 
mission to that church, no one giving attention to him.” * 
At Rome, then, in Africa, in Asia, and universally, the 
penitent was restored to Christian communion by the 
authority of the church from which he had been expelled. 
If it were necessary to adduce further evidence in vindi- 
cation of the right of the people to administer the discipline 
of the church, it might be drawn from the acknowledged 
fact that the people, down to the third or fourth century, 
retained, and not unfrequently exercised, the right even of 
deposing from the ministry. The controversy of the people 
of Corinth with their pastors, as indicated in the epistle of 
Clement, has been already mentioned; and the case of Va- 
lens deposed from the ministry by the church at Philippi. 
To these may be added the instances of Martialis and Basi- 
lides, bishops of Leon and Astorga in Spain, who were de- 
posed for idolatry. From this sentence they appealed to 
several bishops in Africa. These, after hearing the case in 
common council, A. D. 258, affirmed the act of the people. 
The result of their deliberations was communicated by Cyp- 
rian, from which decision the extract below is taken, in 
which he fully accords to the people the right both to 
choose the worthy and depose the unworthy: eligendi dig- 


39 Euseb. Eccl. Hist. Lib. 5, c. 28. 
40 Kuseb. Eccl. Hist. Lib. 6, ¢: 49. 
41 Euseb. Eccl. Hist. Lib. 6, c. 44. 


E# 


106 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


nos sacerdotes et indignos recusandi.” Cyprian, the father 
of old Catholic high-church episcopalianism, most explicitly 
declares that the church is superior to the bishops, super 
episcopos ; the supreme power is vested in them—in all that 
are in good and regular standing, omnibus stantibus, all who 
have not apostatized. The bishop only acts as the moderator 
of the church. ‘‘ Many other such like passages are found 
in that Synodical Epistle, which flatly asserts the people’s 
power to depose a wicked and scandalous bishop.” * And 
again, by Dr. Barrow, of the Episcopal Church: “No man 
can be bound to follow any one into the ditch, or to obey 
any one in prejudice to his own salvation. If any pastor 
should teach bad doctrine or prescribe bad practice, his 
people may reject and disobey him.” “ 

From these censures of a popular assembly an appeal 
would be made, as in the case before us, to a synodical 
council or to the neighboring bishops. For this reason 
they are sometimes represented as the ecclesiastical court 
for the trial of the clergy. Such they were at a subsequent 
period; but in the primitive church it was, as appears from 
the foregoing authorities, the right of the church to exercise 
her discipline over both laity and clergy. The greater in- 
cludes the less. The right to depose a scandalous bishop 


#2 See p. 64, note. Mosheim, De Rebus. Cent. IIT. καὶ 23. 

43 King’s Prim. Chris. P.1,¢. 6. Inde per temporum et succession- 
um vices episcoporum ordinatio et ecclesiae ratio decurrit ut ecclesia 
super episcopos constituatur et omnis actus ecclesiae per eosdem prae- 
positos gubernetur. Cum hoc itaque lege digina fundatum sit, miror 
quosdam, audaci temeritate, sic mihi scribere voluisse ut ecclesiae 
nomine literas facerent, quando ecclesia in episcopo et clero et in om- 
nibus stantibus [7. e., who had not apostatized] sit constituta.— Fp. 33, 
al. 27. Comp. Bingham, Book i6, c. 1; Neander, Allgem. Kirch. 
Gesch. 11, S. 341; Tr. I. p. 200. ᾿ 

“4 Barrow’s Works, Vol. I. p. 744. Comp. also Pertsch, Kirch. 
ΠΡ. I. 5. 370. Mosheim, Can. Recht, p. 60. 


DISCIPLINE BY THE CHURCHES. 107 


of necessity supposes the right to expel from their commu- 
nion an unworthy member of humbler rank. The conclu- 
sion is irresistible, that, as in the highest act of ecclesiastical 
censure, so in smaller offences, the discipline of the church 
was conducted with the strictest regard to the rights and 
privileges of its members. 


3. Argument from the authority of modern ecclesiastical 
writers. 

Authority is not argument, but to some minds it is more 
satisfactory than argument. The opinion of those who have 
made ecclesiastical history the study of their lives is worthy 
of our regard. The concurring opinion of many such be- 
comes a valid reason for our belief. What then is their 
authority ? 

Valesius, the learned commentator on Eusebius, says that 
“the people’s suffrages were required when any one was to 
be received into the church who for any fault had been ex- 
communicated.” ® ‘This is said in relation to the usage of 
the church in the third century. 

The authority of Du Pin, the distinguished historian of 
the Roman Catholic communion, whose opinion upon this 
point is worthy of all confidence, is to the same effect: that 
the discipline of the church continued, in the third century, 
to be administered by the church as it had been from the 
beginning.” 

Simonis, profoundly learned on all points relating to ec- 
clesiastical usage, declares that “this church discipline was 
so administered that not only the clergy, especially the 
bishops, and in important cases a council of them, but also 
the church, in every case, gave their decision and approba- 
tion, in order that nothing might be done through preju- 


*® Keel. Hist. Lib. 6, 44. Com. Lib. 5, 28. 
#6 Antiqua Disciplina, Diss. 8, ο. 1. 


108 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


dice and private interest by being submitted to the clergy 
and bishops alone.” “ 

Baumgarten ascribes to the church alone the entire con- 
trol of ecclesiastical censures, from the earliest periods of 
its history down to the time of Cyprian, when he supposes 
each case to have been first adjudicated by the church, and 
afterward by the clergy and bishop.* 

Mosheim is full and explicit upon the same point. He 
not only ascribes to the church the power of enacting their 
own laws and choosing their own officers, but of excluding 
and receiving such as were the subjects of discipline, malos 
et degeneros et excludendi et recipiendi.® 

Planck asserts that, so late as the middle of the third 
century, the members of the church still exercised their 
original right of controlling the proceedings of the church, 
both in the exclusion of offenders and in the restitution of 
penitents.” 

Guerike also states that, in the third century, the duty 
of excluding from the church and of restoring to her com- 
munion still devolved upon the laity.” 

The views of Neander are sufficiently apparent from quo- 
tations which have already been made in the progress of 
this work. More thoroughly conversant with the writings 
of the fathers, and more profoundly skilled in the govern- 
ment and history of the church, than any in his age, he not 
only ascribes the discipline of offenders originally to the 
deliberate action of the church, but states, moreover, that 


47 Vorlesungen iiber Christ. Alterthum, 5. 426. 

48 Erliuterungen, Christ. Alterthum, 3122. Comp. also 3 36, and 
S. 85. 

49 De Rebus Christ., Saec. Prim. 2 45. 

5° Gesell. Verfass. 1, 5. 180, 508. Comp. S. 129-140, and Fuchs, 
Bibliothek, 1, S. 43, seq. 

51 Kirch. Gesch. S. 94, 100, 101, 2d edit. 


DISCIPLINE BY THE CHURCHES. 109 


the right of controlling this discipline was retained by the 
laity in the middle of the third century, after the rise of 
the episcopal power and the consequent change in the gov- 
ernment of the church. “The participation of the laity in 
the concerns of the church was not yet altogether excluded. 
One of these concerns was the restoration of the lapsed to 
the communion of the church. The examination which 
was instituted in connection with this restoration was also 
held before the whole church.” ” 

These authorities might be extended almost indefinitely ; 
but enough have been cited to show that, in the opinion of 
those who are most competent to decide, the sacred right of 
directing the discipline of the church was, from the begin- 
ning, exercised by the whole body of believers belonging to 
the community; and that they continued, in the third cen- 
tury, to exercise the same prerogative. 


4. Argument from the fact that the entire government 
of the church was under the control of its members. 

Government by the people characterized the whole eccle- 
siastical polity of the primitive church. The members of 
the church, unitedly, enacted their own laws, elected their 
own officers, established their own judicature, and managed 
all their affairs by their mutual suffrages. “With them 
resided the power of enacting laws, as also of adopting or 
rejecting whatever might be proposed in the general assem- 
bles, and of expelling and again receiving into communion 
any depraved or unworthy members. In a word, nothing 
whatever of any moment could be determined on or carried 
into effect without their knowledge and concurrence.” δἢ 
On this point, again, we must be permitted to adduce the 

authority of Neander. After showing at length that, agree- 

52 Allgem. Kirch. Gesch. 1, 8. 342, 2d edit. Tr. I. p. 200. 


58 Mosheim, De Rebus Christ., Saec. 1, 3 45. 
10 


110 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


ably to the spirit of the primitive church, all were regarded 
as different organs and members of one body, and actuated 
by one and the same spirit, he adds: “ But from the nature 
of the religious life and of the Christian fellowship, it was 
hardly possible that the controlling influence should natu- 
rally have been entrusted to the hands of a single individ- 
ual. The monarchical form of government was not at all con- 
sistent with the spirit of the Christian community.” δ᾿ 

Riddle gives the following sketch of the constitution and 
government of the church as it existed at the close of the 
first and at the beginning of the second century. “The 
subordinate government, etc., of each particular church was 
vested in itself; that is to say, the whole body elected its 
minister and officers, and was consulted concerning all mat- 
ters of importance.” °° 

Even the “judicious” Hooker, the great expounder of 
the ecclesiastical polity of the Episcopal Church, distinctly 
declares that “the general consent of all” is requisite for 
the ratification of the laws of the church. ‘ Laws could 
they never be without the consent of the whole church to 
be guided by them; whereunto both nature and the prac- 
tice of the church of God set down in the Scripture is found 
so consonant that God himself would not impose his own 
laws upon his people by the hands of Moses without their 
free and open consent.” ” 

From all these authorities, in connection with what has 
already been said in the former part of this work, the popu- 
lar administration of the government is an undeniable con- 
clusion. Even the minute concerns of the church were sub- 
mitted to the direction of the popular voice. Is a delegate 
to be sent out? He goes, not as the servant of the bishop, 


54 Allgem. Gesch. 1, S. 312, 2d edit. Tr. I. p. 183. 
55 Chronology, p. 18. 
56 Ecclesiastical Polity, B. VIII. 


DISCIPLINE BY THE CHURCHES. 1.1 


but as the representative of the church, chosen to this ser- 
vice by public vote.” [5 a letter missive to be issued from 
one church to another? It is done in the name of the 
church ; and, when received, is publicly read.” In short, 
nothing is done without the consent of the church. Even 
Cyprian, the great advocate for episcopal authority in the 
middle of the third century, protests to his clergy that, 
“from his first coming to his bishopric, he had ever resolved 
to do nothing according to his own private will without the 
advice of the clergy and the approbation of the people.” ὃ 
The point now under consideration is very clearly pre- 
sented by an old English writer of Cambridge, in England, 
whose work on Primitive Episcopacy evinces such a familiar 
acquaintance with the early history of the church as entitles 
his conclusions to great respect. “In the apostles’ times, 
and divers ages after, all the people, under the inspection 
of one bishop, were wont to meet together, not only for wor- 
ship, but for other administrations. All public acts passed 
at assemblies of the whole people. They were consulted 
with, their concurrence was thought necessary, and their 
presence required, that nothing might pass without their 
cognizance, satisfaction and consent. This was observed 


57 Toenatius, ad. Phil. ο. 10. 

°° The letters of Clement and Polycarp were written by the authority 
of the respective churches. Comp. Euseb. Eccl. Hist. 4, c. 15; 5, e. 
1, and c. 24. With the epistle of Clement, five delegates were sent 
also from the church at Rome to that at Corinth, to attempt to recon- 
cile the dissensions in the latter church, @ 59. 

59 Ad id vero quod scripserunt mihi compresbyteri nostri, Donatus 
et Fortunatus, Novatus et Gordius, solus rescribere nihil potui; quan- 
do a primordio episcopatus mei statuerim nihil sine consilio vestro, et 
sine consensu /plebis meae privatim sententia gerere; sed cum ad vos 
per Dei gratiam venero, tune de eis quae vel gesta sunt, vel gerenda 
sicut honor mutuus poscit in commune tractabimus.—Cyprian, Ep. 5. 
Comp. Ep. 3, 55. Daillé on the Fathers, p. 330. London. 


112 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


not only in elections of officers, but in ordinations and cen- 
sures, in admission of members and reconciling penitents, 
and in debates and consultations about other emergencies. 
There is such evidence of this, particularly in Cyprian, 
almost in every one of his epistles, that it is acknowledged 
by modern writers of all sorts, such as are most learned and 
best acquainted with antiquity.” © 

If then the sanction of the church was sought in the mi- 
nutest matters, transactions of such solemnity as those of 
expelling the guilty and of restoring the penitent must have 
been submitted to their direction. Was a Christian saluta- 
tion to a sister church communicated by public authority, 
commending a faithful brother to communion and fellow- 
ship, and had they no voice in rejecting a fallen and repro- 
bate member from their own communion? Was the sanc- 
tion of the whole body requisite before one from another 
church could be received to their communion, and had they 
no voice in restoring the penitent who returned confessing 
his sins and entreating the enjoyment of the same privi- 
leges ? 

All this fully accords with the usage of the apostolical 
churches, and is a continuation of the same _ policy. — 
Whether deacons are to be appointed, or an apostle or 
presbyters chosen, it is done by vote of the church. <A case 
for discipline occurs; it is submitted to the church. A dis- 
sension arises, Acts xv; this also is referred to the church. 
The decision is made up as seemeth good to the whole church. 
The result is communicated by the apostles, the elders and 
the brethren jointly. The brethren of the church have a 
part in all ecclesiastical concerns; nothing is transacted 
without their approbation and consent. The sovereign 

60 Clarkson’s Primitive Episcopacy, Works, p. 236. The authority 
of the Magdeburg Centuriators is also to the same effect. Comp. 
Chap. 7, Cent. II, and III. 


DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCHES. Its 


power is vested in the people. They are constituted by 
the apostles themselves the guardians of the church, hold- 
ing in their hands the keys of the kingdom, to open and to 
shut, to bind and to loose at their discretion. Neither Peter 
nor any apostle, nor bishop, nor presbyter, but each and 
every disciple of Christ, is the rock on which he would build 
his church. Such is Origen’s interpretation of the passage 
in Matt. xvi. 18: “Every disciple of Christ is that rock, 
and upon all such the whole doctrine of the church and of 
its corresponding polity is built. If you suppose it to be 
built upon Peter alone, what say you of John, that son of 
thunder? and of each of the apostles? Will you presume 
to say that the gates of hell will prevail against the other 
apostles and against all the saints, but not against Peter? 
Rather is not this and that other declaration, ‘On this rock 
I will build my church,’ applicable to each and every one 
alike?” ἃ 

Such are the arguments which we offer in defence of the 
proposition, that any body of believers, associated together 
for the enjoyment of religious rights and privileges, was also 
originally an ecclesiastical court, for the trial of offences.” 
This is asserted by the great Du Pin, of the Roman Catho- 
lic Church. It is admitted by respectable authorities, King 
Cave, Riddle, etc., of the Episcopal Church. It is generally 
acknowledged by Protestants of other religious denomina- 
tions. It is implied or asserted in various passages from 
the early fathers. They speak of it, not as a controverted 
point, but as an admitted principle. The sanction of the 


61 Comment. in Matt. Tom. 3, p. 524. 

62 Tt was a doctrine of Tertullian, that where three are assembled 
together in the name of Christ, there they constitute a church, though 
only belonging to the Jaity. Three were sufficient for this purpose. 
Ubi tres, ecclesia est, licet laici— LH xhort. ad Castitat. c. 7, 522. De 
Fuga, ο. 14. 

10 # 


114 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


members of the primitive church was sought in all the less 
important concerns of the church. They controlled, also, 
the highest acts of ecclesiastical censure, and frequently 
exercised their right of deposing those of their own pastors 
and bishops who proved themselves unworthy of the sacred 
office. And, finally, the church was from the beginning 
authorized and instructed by the apostle Paul to adminis- 
ter discipline to an offending member. With the approba- 
tion of the great apostle, they pronounced upon the trans- 
gressor the sentence of excommunication, and again, on 
receiving satisfactory evidence of penitence, restored him 
‘to their communion and fellowship. 

With the question of expediency, in all this, we have 
now no concern. If any prefer the episcopal system of 
church government to one more free and popular, we shall 
not here dispute their right to submit themselves to the 
control of the diocesan. But when they assert that the 
exercise of such authority belongs to him by the divine 
right of episcopacy, we rest assured that they have begun 
to teach for doctrine the commandments of men. From 
the beginning it was not so. “ Full well ye reject the com- 
mandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.” 


MODE OF ADMISSION. 


This was at first extremely simple; consisting only in the 
profession of faith in Christ, and baptism. The churches, 
however, at an early period, learned the necessity of exer- 
cising greater caution in receiving men into their com- 
munion. Taught by their own bitter experience, they be- 
gan to require, in the candidate for admission to their 
communion, a competent acquaintance with religious truth, 
and a trial of his character for a considerable space of time. 
From undue laxness they passed into the opposite extreme 


DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCHES. 115 


of excessive rigor, in prescribing rules and qualifiations for 
communion. These austerities gaye rise to the order of 
catechumens toward the close of the second century, and to 
a long train of formalities preliminary to a union with the 
church. 

In immediate connection with these rites, and as a part 
of the same discipline, began the system of penance in the 
treatment of the Japsed—persons who had incurred the cen- 
sure of the church. By this their return to the church was 
rendered even more difficult than had been their original 
entrance. The system was rapidly developed. In the 
course of the third century it was brought into full opera- 
tion, while the people still retained much influence over the 
penal inflictions of the church upon transgressors.” But it 
is not our purpose to treat upon this subject. The system 
is described at length in the author’s Ancient Christianity, 
chap. xxii., to which the reader is referred for information 
in relation to the offences which were the subject of disci- 
pline, the penalties inflicted and the manner of restoring 
penitents. 

The entire regimen, however, passed, in process of time, 
from the hands of the people into those of the clergy, espe- 
cially of the bishops. It was lost in the general extinction 
of the rights and privileges of the church, and the over- 
throw of its primitive apostolical constitution; upon the 
ruins of which was reared the episcopal hierarchy, first in 
the form of an “ambitious oligarchy,” and then, of a tyran- 
nical despotism. 


II. Usurpation of discipline by the priesthood. 
In the fourth century, the clergy, by a discipline peculiar 
to themselves, and applicable only to persons belonging to 


63 Planck, Gesellschafts-Verfass. 1, 5. 129-140. Fuchs, Bibliothek, 
1, S. 48, 44, 45-50, 403. 


116 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


their order, found means of relieving themselves from the 
penalties of the protracted penance which was exacted of 
those who fell under the censure of the church. Suspension 
and the lesser excommunication or degradation, and the 
like, were substituted as the penalties of the clergy, instead 
of the rigorous penance of the laity. And though in some 
respects it was claimed that the discipline of the clergy was 
more severe than that of the laity, the practical effect of 
this discrimination was to separate the clergy from the 
laity, and to bring the latter more completely under the 
power of the priesthood.“ It was at once the occasion of 
intolerance in the one, and of oppression to the other. 

The confederation of the churches in synods and councils 
had also much influence in producing the same result. In 
these conventions, laws and regulations were enacted for 
the government and discipline of the churches of the pro- 
vince. And though the churches, severally, still retained 
the right of regulating their own polity as circumstances 
might require, they seldom claimed the exercise of their 
prerogative. The law-making power was transferred, in a 
great degree, from the people to the provincial synods, 
where again the authority of the people was lost in the 
overpowering influence of bishops and clergy. These 
claimed at first only to act as the representatives of their 
respective churches, by authority delegated to them by 
their constituents.” But they soon assumed a loftier tone. 

6 Planck, Gesellschafts-Verfass. 1, S. 342-346. Comp. ο. 8, S. 
125-141. 

6 Tertullian describes such assemblies as bodies representative of the 
whole Christian church. Ipsa repraesentatio totius nominis Chris- 
tiani.—De Jejun. c. 13, p. 552. 

In the infancy, indeed, of councils, the bishops acknowledged that 
they appeared there merely as the ministers or legates of their respec- 
tive churches, and were, in fact, nothing more than representatives 
acting under instructions; but this humble language began, by little 


DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCHES. 117 


Claiming for themselves the guidance of the Spirit of God, 
they professed to speak and act according to the teachings 
of this divine agent. Their decisions, therefore, instead of 
being the judgment of ignorant and erring men, were the 
dictates of unerring wisdom. And the people, in exchange 
for the government which they had been accustomed to ex- 
ercise for themselves, were provided with an administration 
which claimed to be directed by wisdom from above.” 
Taught thus and disciplined in that great lesson of bigotry 
and spiritual despotism,—passive submission to persons or- 
dained of God for the good of the church,—they were pre- 
pared to resign their original rights and privileges into the 
hands of the hierarchy. 

There is the fullest evidence that the action of the laity 
was requisite, as late as the middle of the third century, in 
all disciplinary proceedings of the church. By the begin- 
ning of the fourth, however, this cardinal right was greatly 
abridged; and soon after, wholly lost. This fact strongly 
illustrates the progress of the episcopal hierarchy. While 
the right of the laity was yet undisputed, the power of the 
bishop began to be partially asserted, and occasionally ad- 
mitted; the people occupying a neutral position between 
submission and open hostility. But, from disuse to denial, 
and from denial to the extinction of neglected privileges 
and powers, the descent is natural, short. and rapid. From 
about the middle of the fourth century the bishops assumed 
the control of the whole penal jurisdiction of the laity, 
opening and shutting at pleasure the doors of the church, 
inflicting sentences of excommunication, and prescribing, at 


and little, to be exchanged for a loftier tone. They at length asserted 
that they were the legitimate successors of the apostles themselves, 
and might, consequently, of their own proper authority, dictate laws 
to the Christian flock—Mosheim, De Rebus Christ., Saec. IT, ὃ 28. 

6 Planck, Gesellschafts-Verfass. 1, S, 448-452. 


118 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


their discretion, the austerities of penance; and again ab- 
solving the penitents, and restoring them to the church by 
their own arbitrary power.” The people, accordingly, no 
longer having any part in their trial of offences, ceased to 
watch for the purity of the church, connived at offences, and 
concealed the offenders ; not caring to interfere with the pre- 
rogatives of the bishop, in which they had no further inter- 
est. The speedy and sad corruption of the church was but 
the natural consequence of this loose and arbitrary dis- 
cipline. 

The ecclesiastical discipline, if such indeed it can be 
called, now appears in total contrast with that of the church 
under the apostles. Then, the supreme authority was vested 
in the people; now, in the clergy. The church then en- 
acted her own laws, and administered her discipline; the 
pastor, as the executive officer, acting in accordance with 
her will for the promotion of her purity and of her general 
prosperity. The clergy are now the supreme rulers of the 
church, from whom all laws emanate, and are also the exe- 
cutioners of their own arbitrary enactments. The church is 
no longer a free and independent republic, extending to its 
constituents the rights and privileges of religious liberty ; 
but a spiritual monarchy under the power of an ambitious 
hierarchy, whose will is law, and whose mandates the people 
are taught to receive, as meting out to them, with wisdom 
from on high, the mercy and the justice, the goodness and 
severity of their righteous Lawgiver and Judge. The peo- 
ple are wholly disfranchised by the priesthood, who have 
assumed the prerogatives of that prophetic Antichrist, who 
“as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that 


he is God.” 
61 Planck, Gesellschafts-Verfass. 1, 509. 


DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCHES. 119 


REMARKS. 


1. It is the right and the duty of the members of every 
church themselves to administer the discipline of their own 
body. 

Each church is a voluntary association, formed for the 
mutual enjoyment of the privileges and ordinances of reli- 
gion. To its members belongs the right to prescribe the 
conditions of a connection with their communion, or of ex- 
clusion from it, as may seem good to them, in conformity 
with the principles of the gospel. 

The duty of carefully exercising a Christian watch and 
fellowship, one toward another, and of excluding those who 
walk unworthily, is most clearly enforced in the Scriptures. 
It is one important means of preserving the purity of the 
church and promoting the interests of religion. 

2. Ecclesiastical censure is not a penal infliction, but a 
moral discipline for the reformation of the offender and the 
honor of religion. 

This thought has been already presented, but it should 
be borne distinctly in mind. Church discipline seeks, in 
the kindness of Christian love, to recover a fallen brother, 
to aid him in his spiritual conflicts, and to save him from 
hopeless ruin. In its simplicity and moral efficacy, if not 
in principle, the discipline of the apostolical and primitive 
churches differed totally from that complicated system of 
penance into which it degenerated under the hierarchy. 
The austerities of this system, with its pains and privations, 
have more the appearance of penal inflictions to deter others 
from sin, than of Christian efforts to reclaim the guilty. 
The system itself was often, in the hands of the priesthood, 
an engine of torture, with which to molest an adversary or 
to gratify private resentment. But the Christian love that 
administers ecclesiastical censure, in the spirit of the apos- 


190 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


tolical rule seeks only the reformation of the offender, and 
the honor of that sacred cause upon which he has brought 
reproach.® . 

3. This mode of discipline is the best safeguard against 
the introduction of bad men into the church. 

The members of the church who are associated with the 
candidate in the relations and pursuits of private life, best 
know his character. Commit, therefore, the high trust of 
receiving men into the sacred relations of the church of 
Christ, neither to bishop, nor presbyter, nor pastor, but to 
the united, unbiased decision of the members of that com- 
munion. 

4, Discipline administered by the brethren of the church 
is the best means of securing the kind and candid trial of 
those who may be the subjects of ecclesiastical censure. 

Cases of this kind are often involved in great difficulty, 
and always require to be treated with peculiar delicacy and 
impartiality. These ends of impartial justice the wisdom 
of the world seeks to secure by the verdict of a jury. The 
brethren of the church, in like manner, are the safest tribu- 
nal for the impeachment of those who walk unworthily. 

5. The mode of discipline now under consideration re- 
lieves the pastor from unwelcome responsibilities, both in 
the admission of members and in the treatment of offences. 

He has a delicate and responsible duty to perform toward 
those who present themselves for admission to the church. 
He is not satisfied, it may be, with regard to the qualifica- 
tions of the candidate, and yet this is only an impression 
received from a great variety of considerations which can- 
not well be expressed. But to refuse the applicant without 
assigning good and sufficient reasons may expose him to 
the charge of uncharitableness, and involve him in great 
difficulty. But no railing accusation, however, can be 

68 Venema, Institutiones Hist. Eccles. III. 2 188, p. 214, seq. 


DISCIPLINE BY THE CHURCHES. 121 


brought against him, provided the case is submitted to tie 
impartial decision of the church. 

And again, in the treatment of offences, the pastor should 
always be able to take shelter under the authority of the 
church. Like Paul, in the case of the Corinthians, he may 
be obliged to rebuke them for their neglect, and to urge 
them to their duty. But he should never appear as the 
accuser and prosecutor of his people. The trial should be- 
gin and end with the church, who ought always to be ready 
to relieve their pastor from duties so difficult and delicate, 
which belong not to his sacred office. 

6. Discipline so administered serves to promote the peace 
of the church. 

In every communion may be found men of hasty, restless 
‘spirits, who are ever ready to rally at the cry of bigotry,: 
intolerance, persecution, however unjustly raised. The con- 
tention may rise high and rend the whole church asunder 
if the minister alone becomes the object of attack. The 
only safe appeal is to the calm, deliberate decision of the 
whole body of the church. Here the case is open for a full 
discussion and a fair decision, which, more than anything 
else, has power to silence the rage of faction and to calm 
the tumults of party. Thus a church may gather about 
their pastor for the defence of his character, for his encour- 
agement in the faithful discharge of his duty, and for the 
preservation of their own peace, by silencing the clamors 
of restless malcontents. 

7. The only mode that has ever been devised for presery- 
ing the discipline of the church is to submit it to the con- 
trol not of the clergy, but of the members themselves. 

In consequence of depriving the members of the church 
of a participation in its discipline soon after the rise of 
episcopacy, they became remiss in their attention to the 
scandals of their brethren, and withdrew their watch over 

11 : Ε 


132 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


each other.” And since that day, when has any just dis- 
cipline been maintained in any church under a national 
establishment and an independent priesthood? What is 
the discipline of the Episcopal Church even in this country, 
where, without a state religion or an independent priesthood, 
the laity have little or no concern with the admission of 
members to their communion or the exclusion of them from 
it? Let the reader weigh well this consideration. It sug- 
gests one of our strongest and most important objections to 
the ecclesiastical polity of the Episcopal Church.” 

According to one of the most able historians of the Epis- 
copal Church in this country, and one of its most eminent 
divines, there is no power of “excommunication ”’ now re- 
siding in the church. I refer to the authority of the Rey. 
Dr. Hawks: 

“Who ever heard of the excommunication of a layman 
by our branch of the apostolic church? Neither the Gen- 
eral Convention nor any State Convention have ever pro- 
vided any ‘rules or process’ for excommunication. There 
is not a clergyman in the church, who, if he were desirous 
to excommunicate an offender, would know how to take the 
very first step in the process. It certainly is not to be done 
according to his mere whim; and if it were so done, it is as 


69 Planck, Gesell. Verfass. 1, S. 509, seq. 

7 Some of the clergy of that communion, we understand, are accus- 
tomed to keep a private list of those who are wont to receive the sa- 
cred elements at their hands, and if any are found to walk unworthily, 
their names are silently stricken off from the roll, and their commu- 
nion with the church is dropped in this informal manner. Such pas- 
toral fidelity, duly exercised, is worthy of all consideration. But can 
it be expected, as a general rule, to accomplish the high ends of faith- 
ful Christian discipline? Is it the discipline of the New Testament? 
Or can it be expected of any class of men that they will have the in- 
dependence to be faithful here? A magnanimity how rare! Comp. 
Barnes’ Reply to Dr. Tyng. 


DISCIPLINE BY THE CHURCHES. 123 


certainly invalid. Shall then the presbyter alone do it, or 
shall it be done by his bishop, or by a conclave of bishops, 
or of bishops and presbyters, or by a State Convention in- 
cluding the laity, or by the General Convention including 
the laity again? No man can answer it, for there is no 
rule on the subject.” ‘There are very few of the dioceses 
in which any provision is made by canon for investigating 
or trying the case of a layman.”—Constitution and Canons 
of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, 
pp- 399, 360, 362. 

“Every churchwarden in every parish in England is 
called upon once a year to attend the visitation of his arch- 
deacon. At this time oaths are tendered to him respecting 
his different duties; and among other things he swears that 
he will present to the archdeacon the names of all such in- 
habitants of his parish as are leading notoriously immoral 
lives. This oath is regularly taken once a year by every 
churchwarden in every parish in England; yet I believe 
that such a thing as any single presentation for notoriously 
immoral conduct has scarcely been heard of for a century.” ” 
Another of the Tractarians complains in the following terms 
of this total neglect of discipline in the Episcopal Church: 
“JT think the church has in a measure forgotten its own 
principles, as declared in the sixteenth century; nay, under 
stranger circumstances, as far as I know, than have attended 
any of the errors and corruptions of the Papists. Grievous 
as are their declensions from primitive usage, I never heard, 
in any case, of their practice directly contradicting their 
services ; whereas we go on lamenting, once a year, the ab- 
sence of discipline in our church, yet do not even dream of 
taking any one step toward its restoration.” ” 

A clergyman of our own country, in assigning his “ Rea- 
sons for preferring Episcopacy,” admits that “in no Chris- 

τι Tracts for the Times, No. 59, p. 416. 7 Ibid. No. 41, p. 297. 


194 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


tian denomination of the country is there so great a diver- 
sity of opinion [as in the Episcopal Church] about doc- 
trines, church polity, etc. But we hear,’ he adds with 
great complacency, “of no discipline on account of this 
diversity. The probability is, that discipline on these ac- 
counts would rend and break up the church.” . . . “ There 
is no church in the world that has in fact so great a diver- 
sity of opinion in her own bosom as the Church of England, 
and not a little of downright infidelity. And yet no one 
can reasonably doubt that, if she continue to let discipline 
for opinion alone, etc....... that most important branch 
of Protestantism will ere long be redeemed from her past 
and present disadvantages, and recover the primitive vital- 
ity of Christianity, so as to have it pervading and animating 
her whole communion. Nor is it less certain, that by at- 
tempting discipline for opinion, she would for ever blight 
all these prospects. 

In the Lutheran Church in Germany, Christian disci- 
pline has fallen into equal neglect. So totally is it disre- 
garded that persons of abandoned character, known to be 
such, and the most notorious slaves of lust, are publicly and 
indiscriminately received to the sacrament of the Lord’s 
Supper.“ What ecclesiastical hierarchy or national estab- 
lishment was ever known to maintain, for any long period, 
the purity of the church ἢ 

8. This mode of discipline gives spiritual life and power 
to the church. 


7) 73 


τὸ Thoughts on the Religious State of the Country; with Reasons 
for preferring Episcopacy. By Rey. Calvin Colton, pp. 199, 200. 

τὰ Liebetrut, Tag des Herrn, 8. 331. One of the faithful pastors in 
Germany informed the writer that he refused to receive to the com- 
munion such as were known to be immoral. But the refusal was a 
civil offence, for which he had often been prosecuted, and suffered the 
penalties of the statute law! 


DISCIPLINE BY THE CHURCHES. 12s 


The moral efficiency of any body of believers depends 
not upon their number, but upon the purity of their lives 
and their fidelity in duty. A church composed of men who 
are a living exemplification of the power of the Christian 
religion by their holy lives and by the faithful discharge of 
their duties,—such a church, and such only, is what the 
Lord Jesus designed his church should be—the pillar and 
ground of the truth, the most efficient means of defending 
the honor of the Christian name, and of promoting pure 
and undefiled religion. Without intending any invidious 
reflection, may we not request of the reader a careful con- 
sideration of this subject? Let him remember that a single 
ease of discipline, rightly conducted, gives renewed energy 
to the whole body, quickening every member into newness 
of life in the service of the Lord. Let him estimate the 
moral efficacy of a living church, quickened into healthful, 
holy action compared with one which has a name to live 
and is dead. Let him ponder well these considerations 
before he decides to go over to a communion that tolerates 
a general neglect of the Christian duty which we have been 
contemplating. 

mu 


CHAPTER ΕΙΣ 


EQUALITY AND IDENTITY OF BISHOPS AND 
PRESBYTERS. 


Soon after the ascension of our Lord, it became expe- 
dient for the brethren to appoint a certain class of officers 
to superintend the secular concerns of their fraternity. 
These were denominated διάκονοι, servants, ministers, deacons. 
In process of time, another order of men arose among them, 
whose duty was to superintend the religious interests of the 
church. These were denominated of προιστάμενοι, Rom. xii. 
8; 1 Thess. v. 12; οἱ ἡγούμενοι, Heb. xiii. 7, 17, 24; zpeo- 
βύτεροι, Acts xx. 17; ἐπίσχοποι, Acts xx. 28, equivalent to 
the terms, presidents, leaders, elders, overseers. These terms 
all indicate one and the same office, that of a presiding 
officer, a ruler, in their religious assemblies. Officers of this 
class are usually designated, by the apostles and the earliest 
ecclesiastical writers, as presbyters and bishops,—names 
which are used interchangeably and indiscriminately to 
denote one and the same office. By the apostles and the 
apostolic fathers they are designated in the plural number. 
As in the synagogue there was a plurality of rulers, so in 
the churches there was a plurality of presbyters, or bishops, 
like the modern presbyterian session. 

The appropriate duty of the bishops or presbyters at first 
was, not to teach, or to preach, but to preside over the 
church, and to preserve order in their assemblies. “They 
were originally chosen as in the synagogue, not so much 

126 


EQUALITY OF BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS. 127 


for the instruction and edification of the church, as for 
taking the lead in its general government.”* The neces- 
᾿ sity of such a presiding officer in the church at Corinth is 
sufficiently apparent from the apostle’s rebuke of their 
irregularities, 1 Cor. xiv. 26. The apostle, however, allows 
all to prophesy, to exercise their spiritual gifts; and only 
requires them to speak “one by one,” that all things may 
be done decently and in order. The ordinary officers of 
the apostolical church, then, comprised two distinct classes 
or orders. The one was known by the name of deacons ; 
the other, designated by various titles, of which presbyters 
and bishops were the most frequent. 

Bishops and presbyters, according to the usages of the 
apostles and of the earliest ecclesiastical writers, are identi- 
cal and convertible terms, denoting officers of one and the 
same class. In this proposition we join issue with the 
episcopalians, who assert that bishops were divinely ap- 
pointed as an order of men superior to presbyters. We, on 
the other hand, affirm that presbyters were the highest 
grade of permanent officers known in the apostolical and 
primitive churches; and that the title of bishop was origin- 
ally only another name for precisely the same officer. 
Even after a distinction began to be made between pres- 
byters and bishops, the latter were not a peculiar order 
distinct from presbyters and superior to them. The 
bishop was merely one of the presbyters appointed to pre- 
side over the college of his fellow-presbyters. Like the 
moderator of a modern presbytery or association, he still 
retained a ministerial parity with his brethren, in the 
duties, rights and privileges of the sacred office. Our 


1 Neander’s Apost. Kirch. I. p. 44, seq. Comp. Siegel, Handbuch, 
IV. 5. 223. Ziegler, Versuch, der kirchlichen Verfassungsformen, S. 
3-12. Rothe, Anfinge, I. 5. 153. So, also, Giesler, Rheinwald, 
Boéhmer, Winer, ete. 


128 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


sources of argument in defence of this general proposition 
are two-fold,—Scripture and history. 


I. The scriptural argument for the equality and identity 
of bishops and presbyters may be comprised under the fol- 
lowing heads: 

1. The appellations and titles of a presbyter are used in- 
discriminately and interchangeably with those of a bishop. 

2. A presbyter is required to possess the same qualifica- 
tions as a bishop. 

3. The official duties of a presbyter are the same as those 
of a bishop. 

4. There was, in the apostolical churches, no ordinary 
and permanent class of ministers superior to that of pres- 
byters. 


1. The appellations and titles of a presbyter are used in- 
terchangeably with those of a bishop. 

One of the most unequivocal proof-texts in the Scriptures 
is found in Acts xx. 17, compared with verse 28. Paul, 
on his journey to Jerusalem, sent from Miletus and called 
the presbyters, πρεσβυτέρους, elders, of Ephesus, to meet him 
there. And to these presbyters, when they had come, he 
says, in his affectionate counsel to them, “ Take heed to 
yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost 
hath made you bishops, ἐπισχύπους, to feed the church of 
God which he hath purchased with his own blood.” Both 
terms are here used in the same sentence with reference to | 
the same men. It is remarkable that bishops and presby- 
ters are never mentioned together by the apostles as two 
orders of the ministry. 

We have another instance, equally clear, of the indis- 
criminate use of the terms, in the first chapter of Paul’s 
epistle to Titus: “ For this cause I left thee in Crete, that 


EQUALITY OF BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS. 129 


thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and 
ordain presbyters, πρεσβυτέρους, in every city, as I had ap- 
pointed thee.” Then follows an enumeration of the quali- 
fications which are requisite in these presbyters, one of 
which is given in these words: “A bishop must be blame- 
less, as the steward of God.” 

Again, it is worthy of particular attention that the apos- 
tle, in his instructions to Timothy, 1 Tim. iii. 1-7, after 
specifying the qualifications of a bishop, proceeds immedi- 
ately to those of deacons, the second class of officers in the 
church, without making the least allusion to presbyters, 
though giving instructions for the appointment of the ap- 
propriate officers of the church. This omission was not a 
mere oversight in the writer; for he subsequently alludes 
to the presbytery, iv. 14, and commends those that rule well, 
v.17. In these passages the apostle has in mind the same 
offices, and uses the terms bishop and presbyter, as identical 
in meaning. 

To all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, 
the apostle addresses his salutation,—to the saints, with the 
bishops and deacons, that is, to the church and the officers 
of the church. Here, again, as in all his epistles, these 
officers are divided into two classes. 

The supposition that these were bishops of the episcopal 
order involves the absurdity of a plurality of bishops over 
the same church; a supposition at variance with the first 
principles of diocesan episcopacy, which admits of but one 
in a city.’ This difficulty appears to have forcibly im- 


2 “Epiphanius tells us that Peter and Paul were both bishops of 
Rome at once: by which it is plain he took the title of bishop in an- 
other sense than now it is used; for now, and so for a long time up- 
ward, two bishops can no more possess one see, than two hedge-spar- 
rows dwell in one bush. St. Peter’s time was a little too early for 
bishops to rise.””—Hales’ Works, Vol. I. p. 110. 


130 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


pressed the mind of Chrysostom. “ How is this?” exclaims 
the eloquent patriarch. ‘ Were there many bishops in the 
same city? By no means; but he calls the presbyters by 
this name [bishops]; for at that time eh was the common 
appellation of both.’’? 

Finally, we appeal to 1 Pet. v. 2,5, where the apostle, as 
being also an elder, exhorts the elders to feed the flock of 
God, taking the oversight of them, ἐπισχυποῦντες, acting the 
bishop, performing the duties of a bishop over them, requiring 
of them the same duties which the apostle Paul enjoins 
upon the presbyter-bishops of Ephesus. As at Ephesus, 
where Paul gave his charge to those presbyters, so here 
there could have been no bishop over those whom Peter 
commits to the oversight of these presbyters. ‘‘That the 
terms bishop and presbyter, in their application to the first 
class of officers, are perfectly convertible, the one pointing 
out the very same class of rulers with the other, is as evi- 
dent as the sun ‘shining in his strength.’ To a man who 
has no turn to serve, no interest in perverting the obvious 
meaning of words, one would think that a mathematical 
demonstration could not carry more satisfactory evidence.’* 

These terms are also precise and definite, descriptive of a 
peculiar office, which cannot be mistaken for any other in 
the apostolic church. The original identity of bishops and 
presbyters is now conceded by many episcopalians them- 
selves. ‘That presbyters were called bishops I readily 
grant; that this proves that the officer who was then called 
a bishop, and consequently the office, was the same.’’® 


3 Σὺν ἐπισκόποις καὶ διακόνοις. Ti τοῦτο » μιᾶς πόλεως πολλοὶ ἐπίσκο- 
ποι ἧσαν; Οὐδαμῶς, ἀλλὰ τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους οὕτως ἐκάλεσε" τότε γὰρ τέως 
ἐκοινώνουν τοῖς ovduaot,—In Phil. 1, 1, p. 188, seq. Tom. 11. 

* Mason’s Works, Vol. III. pp.. a 43. Comp. King, Prim. Christ. 
pp. 67, 68. 

5 Bowden, Works on Episcop. Vol. 1. p. 161. 


EQUALITY OF BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS. 131 


“ΤῊ episcopalian cannot be found who denies the inter- 
changeable employment of the terms bishop and presbyter 
in the New Testament.”*® Bishop Burnet admits that they 
“are used promiscuously by the writers of the first two cen- 
turies ;”’ to which might be added authorities without limit. 

The scriptural title of the office under consideration is 
usually that of presbyter or elder. It had long been in use 
in the synagogue. It denoted an office familiar to every 
Jew. It conveyed a precise idea of a ruler whose powers 
were well defined and perfectly understood. When adopted 
into the Christian church, its meaning must have been 
easily settled ; for the office was essentially the same in the 
church as previously in the synagogue. Accordingly, it 
constantly occurs in the writings of the apostle, to denote 
an officer familiarly known, but having no resemblance to 
a modern diocesan bishop. The term, bishop, occurs but 
five times in the New Testament; and, in each instance, in 
such a connection as to be easily identified with that of 
presbyter. The former is derived from the Greek language, 
the latter has a Jewish origin. Accordingly, it is worthy 
of notice, that the apostles, when addressing Jewish Chris- 
tians, use the term presbyter; but in their addresses to 
Gentile converts, they adopt the term bishop, as less ob- 
noxious to those who spoke the Greek language.’ 

2. A presbyter is required to possess the same qualifica- 
tions as a bishop. 

The apostle has specified at length the qualifications both 
for a bishop and a presbyter, which, for the sake of com- 
parison, are here set in opposite columns : 


6 Chapman, cited in Smyth’s Pres. and Prelacy, p. 111. 

7 Rothe, Anfiinge, I. 218, 219. Neander, Apost. Kirch. I. 178, 
179. Schoene, Geschichtsforschungen, I. 247-249. Comp. Bishop 
Croft, in Smyth’s Apost. Succ. p. 159. 


192 


THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


QUALIFICATIONS. 


For a bishop, 1 Tim. iii. 2-7: 

A bishop must be blameless, 
the husband of one wife,’ one that 
ruleth well his own house, having 
his children in subjection with all 
gravity. For if aman know not 
how to rule his own house, how 
shall he take care of the church 
of God? vs. 2, 4, 5. 

Vigilant, νηφάλεον, circumspect, 
sober, of good behavior, given to 
hospitality, apt to teach. v. 2. 


Not given to wine, no striker, 
not greedy of filthy lucre, but pa- 
tient, ἐπιεικῆ, gentle, not soon an- 
gry, not a brawler, not covetous, 
not a novice, lest, being lifted up 
with pride, he fall into the con- 
More- 


over, he must have a good report 


demnation of the devil. 


of them which are without, lest he 
fall into reproach and the snare 
of the devil. vs. 3, 6, 7. 


The qualifications are identical throughout. 


For a presbyter, Tit. i. 6-10: 

If any be blameless, the hus- 
band of one wife, having faithful 
children, (who are) not accused 
of riot, or unruly. τ. 6. 


A lover of hospitality, a lover 
of good men, sober, just, holy, 
temperate, holding fast the faith- 
ful word as he hath been taught, 
that he may be able by sound doc- 
trine both to exhort, and to con- 
vince the gainsayers. vs. 8, 9. 

A bishop must be blameless, as 
the steward of God, not self-will- 
ed, not soon angry, not given to 
wine, no striker, not given to 
filthy lucre. vy. 7. 


15 a blame- 


less, sober and virtuous life, a meek and quiet spirit, re- 


quired of a bishop? 


So are they of a presbyter. 


W hat- 


ever is needful for the one is equally essential for the other. 


8 In utraque epistola sive episcopi sive presbyteri (quanquam apud — 
veteres lidem episcopi et presbyteri fuerint quia illud nomen dignita- 
tis est, hoc aetatis) jubentur monogami in clerum eligi.—Jerome, Ep. 


83, ad Oceanum, Tom. 4, p. 648. 


EQUALITY OF BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS. 133 


If, then, there be this wide and perpetual distinction be- 
tween the two which episcopacy claims, how extraordinary 
that the apostle, when stating the qualifications of a hum- 
ble presbyter, should not abate an iota from those which 
are requisite for the high office of a bishop? 

3. The duties of a presbyter are the same as those of a 
bishop. 

Their duties, severally and equally, are to rule, to coun- 
sel and instruct, to administer the ordinances, and to ordain. 

(a) Both exercised the same authority over the church. 

If bishops were known in the apostolical churches as a 
distinct order, the right of government confessedly belonged 
to them. We have, therefore, only to show that presbyters 
exercised the same right. This exercise of authority is 
denoted in the New Testament by several terms, each of 
which is distinctly applied to presbyters. 

(a) Such is ἡγέομαι, to lead, to guide, etc. In Heb. xiii. 
7 and 17 this term occurs. Remember them that have the 
rule over you, τῶν ἡγουμένων bya». Obey them that have 
rule over you, τοῖς ἡγουμένοις ὁμῶν. 

(7) Another term expressive of authority over the church 
is προΐστημι, to preside, to rule. Xenophon uses this verb 
to express the act of leading or ruling an ancient chorus 
and an army.’ ‘The apostle Paul uses the same to express 
the authority which the presbyters exercised as rulers of the 
church. 

“We beseech you, brethren, to know them which labor 
among you and are over you, προϊσταμένους, in the Lord,” 
1 Thess. v. 12, Prelates of the church these presbyters can- 
not have been; for there were several, it appears, in this 
single city, a circumstance totally incompatible with the 


9 Οὐδὲν ὅμοιόν ἐστι χοροῦ τε καὶ στρατεύματος προεστάναι. “ Between 
the taking the lead of a chorus and the command of an army,” both ex- 
pressed by προεστάναι, “there is no analogy.” — Mem. 8, 4, 8. 


12 


134 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


organization of diocesan episcopacy. The whole, taken to- 
gether, is descriptive not of a bishop in his see, but of a 
presbyter, a pastor, in the discharge of his parochial duties. 
Again, “Let the elders, presbyters, that rule well be ac- 
counted worthy of double honor,” οὐ χαλῶς προιστῶτες 
πρεσβύτεροι, 1 Tim. v.17. Here are presbyters ruling over 
the church of Ephesus, where, according to the episcopal 
theory, Timothy, as bishop, had established the seat of his 
apostolical see. 

(y) Another term of frequent occurrence, in writers both 
sacred and profane of approved authority, is zotpatva, to 
feed; metaphorically, to cherish, to provide for, to rule, to 
govern. It expresses the office, and comprehends all the 
duties of a shepherd. This term the apostle uses in his 
exhortation to the presbyters of Ephesus at Miletus: “Take 
heed to yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy 
Ghost hath made you bishops, to feed, ποιμαίνειν, the church 
of God.” Beyond all question, this term, both in classic 
and hellenistic Greek, expresses the power of government. 
Both this and ἡγούμενος, above mentioned, are used in the 
same passage to express the government of Christ, the chief 
Shepherd, over his people Israel: “Thou, Bethlehem, in 
the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of 
Juda, for out of thee shall come a governor, ἡγούμενος, who 
shall rule, ποιμανεῖ, my people Israel,” Matt. 11.6. Without 
further illustration, we have sufficient evidence that the 
presbyters were invested with all the authority to guide, 
govern and provide for the church which the bishop him- 
self could exercise. The very same terms which express 
the highest power of government and which are applied to 
the office even of the great Head of the church, are used 
to express the authority of presbyters, and to set forth the 
power with which they are invested to rule and feed the 
church. 


EQUALITY OF BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS. 135 


(6) Presbyters were the authorized counselors of the 
church; and, in connection with the apostles, constituted 
the highest court of appeal for the settlement of controver- 
sies in the church. | 

About the year 50, a spirited controversy arose at An- 
tioch, which threatened to rend the church, and to hinder 
the progress of that gospel which Paul and Barnabas had 
begun successfully to preach to the Gentiles. It was of the 
utmost importance that this dispute should be immediately 
and finally settled. For this purpose, a delegation, consist- 
ing of Paul, and Barnabas, and others, was sent from the 
church at Antioch on an embassy to Jerusalem, to submit 
the subject under discussion to the examination and decision 
of the church, with the apostles and presbyters. This dele- 
gation was kindly received by the members of the church 
at Jerusalem, with their officers, the apostles, πρεσβύτεροι, 
and elders, and to them the whole subject of the dissension 
at Antioch was submitted. Peter and James were, at this 
time, at Jerusalem, and members of this council. The sub- 
ject was discussed at length on both sides, but the con- 
curring opinions of Peter and James finally prevailed, and 
the council united harmoniously in the sentiments expressed 
by these apostles. It is observable, however, that the result 
of the council was given, not in the name of James” or any 


10 That James did not draw up this decree as “the head of the 
church at Jerusalem,” and as his “authoritative sentence,” is unan- 
swerably shown by Rev. Dr. Mason, in his Review of Essays on Epis- 
copacy. The amount of the argument is, that James simply expresses 
his opinion, verse 19; just as Peter had done before. So the word, 
κρίνω, in the connection in which it is used, implies, and so it was under- 
stood by the sacred historian, who, in Acts xvi. 4, declares, that the 
“authoritative sentence,” the decrees, were ordained by the apostles 
and presbyters. Comp. also Acts xxi. 25. The case was not referred 
to James, neither could it be submitted to him as bishop of Jerusalem, 
Antioch lying entirely without his diocese, even on the supposition 


136 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


one of the apostles, but conjointly, by the apostles, and 
presbyters, and brethren, Acts xv. 23. Throughout the 
whole narrative the presbyters appear as the authorized 
counselors of the church, and the only ordinary officers of 
the church, whose opinion is sought in connection with that 
of the apostles, without any intimation of an intermediate 
grade of bishops.” 

(c) To administer the ordinances of the church was the 
appropriate office of the presbyters. 

The performance of these duties could not have been re- 
stricted to the apostles. ‘The sacrament was at first admin- 
istered daily; and afterward, on each Lord’s day as a 
part of public worship. The frequency and universality of 
the ordinance of necessity required that it should be 
administered by the ordinary ministers of the church. 
Baptism, by a like necessity, devolved upon them. The 
numerous and far-spreading triumphs of the gospel utterly 
forbid the idea that the apostles, few in number, and 
charged with the high commission of preaching the gospel, 
and giving themselves wholly to this as their appropriate 
work, could have found time and means for going every- 
where, and baptizing with their own hands all that believed 
on the Lord Jesus Christ. Besides, they appear expressly 
to have disclaimed this work, and to have entrusted the 
service chiefly to other hands. “I thank God that I bap- 
tized none of you but Crispus and Gaius. And I baptized 
that Jerusalem was the seat of his episcopal see. The authority of 
this decree was also acknowledged in all the churches of Asia. The 
supposition that it was the official and authoritative sentence of James 
as bishop, exalts him above all the other apostles who were members 
of the council, and gives him a power far-reaching and authoritative 
beyond that which belonged to St. Peter himself, the prelatical head 
of the church. 

1 Comp. Rothe, Anfinge, Vol. I. 5. 181, 182. 

12 Neander, Apost. Kirch. 1, Ὁ. 30. 


EQUALITY OF BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS. 137 


also the household of Stephanas; besides, I know not 
whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me, not to 
baptize, but to preach,” 1 Cor. i. 14-17. Cornelius, again, 
was baptized, not by Peter, but by some Christian disciple, 
agreeably to his command, ‘The apostles seldom baptized. 
The inference therefore is, that this service was by them 
committed to the presbyters, the ordinary officers of the 
ehurch. “In the earliest times, when no formal distinction 
between éxéozozor, bishops, and πρεσβύτεροι, presbyters, had 
taken place, the presbyters, especially the προεστῶτες, pre- 
siding presbyters, 1 Tim. v. 17, discharged those episcopal 
functions, which, afterward, when a careful distinction of. 
ecclesiastical officers had been made, they were not per- 
mitted to discharge, otherwise than as substitutes or vicars 
of a bishop. Instances, however, do sometimes occur, in 
later times, of presbyters having officiated in matters which, 
according to the canon-law, belonged only to the episcopal 
office.” 

(d) To ordain is the right and prerogative of pres- 
byters. 

Episcopacy claims this as the exclusive prerogative of 
bishops. We, on the contrary, claim for presbyters pre- 
cisely the same duty, right and prerogative, and offer it as 
evidence of the ministerial parity of bishops and presbyters. 
The argument for the validity of presbyterian ordination is 
reserved for consideration under a separate head. 

4, There was in the apostolical churches no ordinary class 
of ministers superior to that of presbyters or bishops. 

We deny that Timothy or Titus, or any other person or 
class of persons named in Scripture, represents an order of 
ministers in the churches planted by the apostles who were 
invested with prerogatives superior to those of presbyters, 
and whose office was to be perpetuated in the church of 

18 Riddle, Chr. Antiquities, p. 233, 
12 # 


138 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


Christ. In opposition to these episcopal pretensions, we 
remark : 

(a) That no distinct appellation is given to the supposed 
order, and no class of religious teachers represents them in 
the Scriptures. 

If there were such an order, how extraordinary that it 
should have been left without a name or a distinctive ap- 
pellation of any kind! Here is the highest grade of officers 
possessed exclusively of certain ministerial rights and pow- 
ers, from whom all clerical grace has been transmitted by 
episcopal succession, age after age, down to the present 
time; and yet this grade is distinguished by no peculiar 
appellation, and represented by no single class or order of 
men. ‘The inferior orders, presbyters and deacons, are spe- 
cified with great distinctness, but the highest and most im- 
portant has no definite name, no distinct and single repre- 
sentative. Yet the modein bishop, with astonishing credu- 
lity, traces back his spiritual lineage almost through a 
thousand generations, in strange uncertainty all the while 
to whom he shall at last attach himself or with whom claim 
kindred. If Peter fails him, he flies to Paul, to James, to 
Timothy, to Titus, to the angel of the church, to—he knows 
not whom. He is, however, a legitimate descendant and 
successor of some apostolical bishop, but that _bishop—no- 
body knows who he was, or what, precisely, his office may 
have been! 4 

(6) The Scriptures give no authority for ascribing either 
to the apostles or to their assistants and fellow-laborers the 
exercise of episcopal authority. 

The fathers do indeed assign episcopal sees to several of 
the apostles and to their helpers. And modern episcopa- 
lians refer us with great confidence to James, to Timothy, to 
Titus, and to the angels of the churches in the epistles of 
the Apocalypse, as instances of primitive bishops. Now we 


EQUALITY OF BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS. [99 


deny that either of these exercised the rights and preroga- 
tives of an episcopal bishop. 

(a) James was ποῦ bishop of Jerusalem. 

We have already seen™ with what care the apostles 
guarded against any assumption of authority over the 
churches. They taught, they counseled, they admonished, 
they reproved, indeed, with the authority belonging to am- 
bassadors of God and ministers of Christ. But they assumed 
not to rule and to govern with the official power of a dio- 
cesan. The evidence of this position is already before the | 
reader, and to his consideration we submit it without further 
remark. 

But James, it is said, resided at Jerusalem, as bishop of 
that church and diocese, and in this capacity offers us a 
scriptural example of an apostolical bishop. The episco- 
pal functions of this bishop, therefore, require a particular 
consideration. 

In the days of Claudius Caesar arose a dearth throughout 
Judea so distressing that a charitable contribution was made, 
and relief sent by the hands of Barnabas and Saul to the 
brethren in Judea residing in the supposed diocese of this 
bishop of Jerusalem. To whom was this charity sent? 
Not to the bishop, but to the presbyters, the appropriate 
officers of that church, Acts xi. 30. 

The delegation sent from Antioch to Jerusalem for coun- 
sel were received, not by the bishop, but by the church, the 
apostles and the presbyters, Acts xv. 4. They compose this 
council and make up the result. Jt seemed good to the apos- 
tles and presbyters, with all the church. Where is our dio- 
cesan all this time? Plainly he has no official character ; 
no existence in this church. The idea of a diocesan bishop 
over this community, just now living together in the sim- 


14 Chapter 1. 


140 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


plicity of their mutual love, is an idle fancy, devoid of all 
reality.” 

James appears to have chiefly resided at Jerusalem for 
good and sufficient reasons, but not as the prelatical head 
of that church or diocese. As a Jew, as the brother of our 
Lord, as well as by his personal characteristics, he was emi- 
nently qualified to serve as mediator between the opposite 
parties of Jewish and Gentile converts, and to counsel and 
to act for the peace of the church. But in all this he acted 
not as a bishop, but as an apostle, in that divine character 
and by that authority which he possessed as an apostle of 
the Lord Jesus Christ, and which, as Neander has well 
observed, could be delegated to none other.” 

But do not Clement of Alexandria,” Hegesippus,” the 
Apostolical Constitutions,” Eusebius,” Cyril of Jerusalem,” 
Epiphanius,” Chrysostom,” Jerome,* Augustine,” and many 
others of later date, all agree that James was bishop of Je- 
rusalem? Grant it all. But their declaration only relates 
to a disputed point in the history of the Acts of the Apos- 
tles, upon which we, perhaps, are as competent to decide as 


15 Rothe, Anfiinge, I. 5. 267, seq. 

16 Introduction, p. 20. Also, Apost. Kirch. 2, ο. 1, p. 14,seq. Comp. 
Euseb. Eccl. Hist. Lib. 2, ο. 23. 

17 Kuseb. Eccl. Hist. 2, ὁ. 1. 

18 Kuseb. Eccl. Hist. 2, c. 23. 

19 Lib. 6, Ep. 14, p. 346. 

20 Lib. 2, c. 1; 2, c. 23; 3, ὃ. 5; 7, c. 19. Comment. in Hesai. xvii. 
5, Vol. II. p. 422. Montfaucon, Collec. Nov. Pat. et Scrip. Graec. ed. 
Paris, 1706. 

21 Catech. 4, Ep. 28, p. 65, ed. Touttée. 

2 Haer. 78. Antidicomarianitar. ὃ 5, p. 1039. 

23 Hom. 38, in Ep. ad Corinth, Vol. X. p. 355. 

4 Catal. Script. Eccl. s. v. Jacob, frater Domini, Vol. I. p. 170. 
Comment. in Ep. ad Gal. i. 19; Vol. IV. p. 236. Ed. Paris. 

% Contra literas Petiliani, L. 2, c. 51, ¢ 118, Vol. TX. p. 172. 


EQUALITY OF BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS. 141 


they. With the same historical data in view, why cannot 
a judgment be made upon them as safely in the nineteenth 
century as in the third or the fifth? With what propriety 
these ancient fathers denominate James bishop of Jerusalem 
let the reader himself judge in view of the foregoing con- 
siderations. 

But Hegesippus lived in the second century, within one 
hundred years of the apostolic age, and must be an unex- 
ceptionable witness. What then is his testimony? Simply 
that James took charge of the church in connection with the 
apostles, for such must the term μετά imply. This prepo- 
sition not unfrequently expresses the relation of co-operation 
or concomitancy, μετὰ βοιωτῶν ἐμάχοντο, Il. 18, 700. They 
engaged in this contest μεθ ὑμῶν, with you, says Demosthenes, 
rather than against you. ‘This personal association is im- 
plied in John 111. 22; Matt. xii. 42; Acts ix. 39, as in the 
text διαδέχεται O&—tiy ἐχχλησίαν μετὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων. He 
remained chiefly at Jerusalem, the centre of operations for 
all of the apostles, and had, if you please, the immediate 
supervision of this church in connection with the other 
apostles. After the rise of the hierarchy, the episcopal 
fathers that have been mentioned may have interpreted 
the testimony of this author into a declaration of the epis- 
copal office of James. If so, we are at liberty to challenge 
the authority of these fathers on the point under considera- 
tion. Like them, we have the historical record before us, 
and the means of forming an independent opinion.” 

Indeed, antiquity itself, in the language of Milton, “hath 
turned over the controversy to that sovereign Book which 
we had fondly straggled from.” After refuting other tra- 
ditions, he adds: “ As little can your advantage be from 
Hegesippus, an historian of the same time, not extant, but 


26 Rothe, Anfiinge der Christ. Kirch. T. 268-272. 


142 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


cited by Eusebius. His words are, ‘that in every city all 
things so stood in his time as the law and the prophets, 
and our Lord did preach.’ If they stood so, then stood not 
bishops above presbyters. For what our Lord and his dis- 
ciples taught, God be thanked, we have no need to go learn 
of him.” ” 

The churches, besides their union of faith and fellow- 
ship of spirit, had one bond of union in the instruction, 
care and oversight which the apostles exercised in com- 
mon oyer all the churches. What care the apostle Paul 
took to encourage this fellowship of the churches is mani- 
fested in the salutations which he sends in their behalf: 
All the churches in Christ salute you, Rom. xvi. 16; The 
churches of Asia salute you. All the brethren greet you, 
1 Cor. xvi.-29,:20. 

This oversight the apostles constantly exercised; caring 
for all and watching for all as they had opportunity, that 
thus they might, as far as possible, supply the place of their 
Lord and fulfill the ministry which they had received from 
him. In the distribution of their labors, by mutual consent, 
they occupied, to a great extent, separate fields. Some 
went to the heathen, and others to the circumcision, Gal. 
ii. 7-9. But none had any prescribed field of labor 
bearing the remotest analogy to a modern diocese. “The 
apostles were constituted of God rulers not over a sepa- 
rate nation or city, but all were entrusted with the 
world.” * 

(%) Timothy at Ephesus was not a bishop. 

Timothy was one of a class of religious teachers who 


27 Prose Works, Vol. I. p. 86. 

38 Hicly ὑπὸ ϑεοῦ χειροτονηϑέντες ἀπόστολοι ἄρχοντες, οὐκ ἔϑνη καὶ 
πόλεις διαφόρους λαμβάνοντες, ἀλλὰ πάντες κοινῇ τὴν οἰκουμένην ἐμπισ- 
tevdévtec.—Chrysostom, cited by Campbell, Lectures, p. 77. Comp. 
Rothe, Anfinge, Christ. Kirch. I. 8. 297-310. 

9 


EQUALITY OF BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS. [43 


acted as itinerant missionaries, the assistants and fellow- 
laborers of the apostles. Their assistance was employed as 
a necessary expedient, to enable the apostles to exercise 
through them a supervision over the infant churches which 
sprang up in the different and distant countries in which 
Christianity was propagated. Over churches widely sepa- 
rated the apostles could personally exercise but little super- 
vision. 

Such assistants and delegates of the apostles are of fre- 
quent occurrence in the Scriptures. And this view of their 
office affords at once a natural and easy explanation of the 
peculiar and somewhat anomalous rank which they seem to 
have held. Bishops they certainly were not, in the episco- 
pal sense of that term.” Neither were they merely presby- 
ters; for though in many respects their office was analogous 
to that of presbyters, in others it was widely different. 
Timothy, Paul styles his fellow-laborer, συνεργός, Rom. xvi. 
21; 1 Thess. i. 2. In the salutations of his epistles he 
often couples the name of Timothy with his own, Phil. i. 1; 
1 Thess. i. 1; 2 Thess. 1. 1, ete. Accordingly, Timothy was 
the traveling companion of the apostle, and his fellow- 
laborer. 

At different times he had the superintendence of several 
churches in various places. Comp. 1 Cor. iv. 17; 1 Tim. 
i. 8, and 1 Thess. 11. 2, from which it appears that he was 
sent to Corinth, to Ephesus and to Thessalonica as a fellow- 
laborer and assistant of the apostle. From what is said of 
his influence at Corinth, he might, with almost equal pro- 
priety, be styled the bishop of that city as of Ephesus. The 
whole history of the Acts of the Apostles and the language 
of the epistles prove that, like the other fellow-travelers of 
St. Paul, Timothy had no settled abode, no fixed station, 


29 Bishop Onderdonk only claims this distinction for Timothy, and 
many others of that communion give up this point. 


144 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


but assisted him as an evangelist in setting the churches in 
order and in the accomplishment of any special object which. 
the apostle had in view, and to which he could not person- 
ally attend. This itinerating life of Timothy sufficiently 
proves that he was not the bishop of Ephesus. When both 
the epistles to the Thessalonians were written, A. D. 62, 
Timothy was with Paul at Corinth, having lately returned 
from Thessalonica, where he had spent some time in minis- 
tering to that church. 

When Paul wrote the first epistle to the Corinthians, 
A. D. 57, from Ephesus, Timothy was absent again on a 
mission to Macedonia and Achaia, from whence he was 
expected soon to return, 1 Cor. xvi. 10. 

The year following, when Paul wrote his second epistle 
from Macedonia, Timothy was with him there, and Titus, 
whom Paul had met in Macedonia, was again one of the 
messengers by whom the letter was forwarded to the church. 

Some months later, A. D. 58, when he wrote his epistle 
to the Romans from Corinth, Timothy was with him there. 

The epistle to the Ephesians was written from Rome, 
A. D. 61, subsequently to the time when Timotby is alleged 
to have been made bishop of Ephesus; yet he is not named 
in it, nor is there any allusion in it to any head of the 
church there. The address is only to “the saints and faith- 
ful brethren.” Indeed it is certain, from the epistles to the 
Colossians and to Philemon, written about the same time 
from Rome, that Timothy was at this time in that city; so 
that he could scarcely have been in his supposed diocese 
at all. 

“The expression in 1 Tim. i. 3, ‘As 1 besought thee to 
abide still at Ephesus when I went into Macedonia,’ marks 
but a temporary purpose, and bears little similitude to a 
settled appointment and establishment of him as head of 
the church there—the bishop, in the modern acceptation of 


EQUALITY OF BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS. 145 


the term. When the second epistle to Timothy was written, 
he was not in his supposed diocese at Ephesus, but the apos- 
tle had sent Tychicus there, a fellow-servant, a beloved 
brother and fellow-minister of the Lord (Eph. vi. 21), as 
Timothy himself was.” *” The absurdity of beseeching Tim- 
othy as a diocesan bishop to abide at Ephesus, 1 Tim. 1. 3, 
is forcibly presented by Daillé: “ Why beseech a bishop to 
remain in his diocese? Is it not to beseech a man to stay 
in a place to which he is bound? I should not think it 
strange to beseech him to leave it, if his services were 
needed elsewhere. But to beseech him to abide in a place 
where his charge obliges him to~be, and which he cannot 
forsake without offending God and neglecting his duty, is, 
to say the truth, not a very civil entreaty; as it plainly 
presupposes that he has not his duty much at heart, seeing 
one is under the necessity of beseeching him to do it.” * 

He was endowed with peculiar gifts, which qualified him 
to serve the churches as a fellow-laborer with the apostle, 
who accordingly charges him not to neglect this gift.” 

(vy) Titus was not bishop of Crete. 

Like Timothy, Titus was an evangelist, a traveling mis- 
sionary. He received similar instructions and performed 
similar labors. Like Timothy, he traveled too much to be 
a stationary prelate. From Syria we trace him to Jerusa- 
lem; thence to Corinth; thence to Macedonia; back again 
to Corinth; thence to Crete; thence to Dalmatia; and 


0 Bowdler’s Letters on Apost. Succession, pp. 25, 26. 

31 Daillé, ci-dessus, p. 23. Cited in Mason’s Works, Vol. III. p. 197. 

82 Comp. Neander, Apost. Kirch. 1, 6. 10. Rothe, Anfinge, I. 5. 
160, 161 and 263; also, J. H. Béhmer, Diss. Jur. Eccl. Antiq. p. 424. 
seq., where is given an able discussion of the points under considera- 
tion, in relation to Timothy, Titus and the angel of the churches. 
Barnes’ Apost. Church, pp. 99-107, and Smyth’s Presbytery and Pre- 
lacy, chap. 12, 3 8. Wilson on Church Government, 2 25, p. 251-263. 

13 G 


140 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


whether he ever returned to Crete is wholly uncertain. 
He was left at Crete, therefore, not as bishop of that dio- 
cese, but as an assistant of the apostle, to establish the 
churches and to continue the work which the apostle had 
begun. ‘“ After Paul had laid the foundation of the Chris- 
tian church in Crete, he left Titus behind to complete the 
organization of the churches, to confirm the new converts 
in purity of doctrine, and to counterwork the influence of 
the false teachers.” ἢ 

Dr. Whitby, himself a zealous advocate of Episcopacy, 
assures us that he could find nothing in any writer of the 
Jjirst three centuries concerning the episcopate of Timothy and 
Titus; nor any intimation that they bore the name of bishop. 
“Certain it is,” says Campbell, “that in the first three cen- 
turies neither Timothy nor Titus is styled bishop by any 
writer.” 

Of the same general character was Silvanus, 1 Thess. i. 
1; 2 Thess. 1.. 1; comp. 1 Pet. v. 12;.and, Mark, Gok iw, 
10; 1 Pet. v. 18; and Clemens, Phil. iv. 3, and several 
others. Silas is first the companion of Paul and Barnabas 
in Asia Minor; then of Paul in his second missionary tour 
through Asia Minor, Macedonia and Achaia; and, at a 
later period, of Peter in the Parthian empire. Mark, too, 
was first the companion of Paul and Barnabas; then, after 
their separation, of Barnabas in Cyprus, and afterward of 
Peter in the Parthian empire, from whence also they jour- 
neyed in company to Rome.” 

(0) The angel of the church in the apocalyptic epistles 
was not a bishop. 

On this subject we shall present the reader with the ex- 
position of several distinguished scholars, and submit it to 

33 Neander, Apost. Kirch. Vol. I. p. 401. Trans. 1. 

34 Comp. Rothe, Anfiinge, I. 8.305, seq. Comp. Wilson on Church 
Government, ᾧ 26, p. 263-270. 


EQUALITY OF BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS. 147 


him whether this phraseology supports the prelatical claims 
of episcopacy. The views of Neander are briefly given in 
his Introduction.” 

“The seven angels have given occasion to much specula- 
tion and diversity of opinion. Are they teachers, bishops, 
overseers? or is some other office designated by the word 
ἄγγελος, angel, here? 

1. “Old Testament usage, viz., the later Hebrew, employs 
the word π᾿ γ9--ἄγχελυς, to desta a prophet, Hag. i. 13, 
also a priest, Mal. 11. 7, and Eccl. v. 6. As priests, in the 
appropriate sense of the word, did not exist in the Christian 
churches (for they had no Mosaic ritual of sacrifices and 
oblations), so we must compare ἄγγεγος here with Ww, 
prophet, in Hag. i. 13. Προφῆται, prophets, there were in 
the Christian church. See 1 Cor. xii. 28; Acts xiii. 1; 
σε xiv. 29) 92, 87; Eph, 1..205. ii, 53 iv. 11. Taken 
in this sense, the word designates here the leading teacher 
in the Asiatic churches. The nature of the case would seem 
to indicate a /eader here, else why should he be especially 
addressed as the representative of the whole body in each 
of the Christian churches? But, 

2. “ Another exposition has been given. Vitringa™ has 
compared the ἄγγελος of the Apocalypse with the )3¥ τ 
of the Jewish synagogues, which means legatus ecclesiae, the 
representative or delegate of the church, and compares well 
with ἄγγελος ἐχχλησίας, angel of the church, as to the form of 
the phrase. The office of the individual thus named was 
to superintend and conduct the worship of the synagogue; 
he recited prayers and read the Scriptures, or invited others 
to perform these duties; he called on the priests to pro- 

35 Page 22. 

36 De Vet. Synagoga. p. 910, seq. As an interpretation of the He- 
brew phrase 4)9¥ movi, the English reader may read, as often as it 
occurs, the ruler of the synagogue. 


148 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


nounce the final benediction in case he himself was not a 
priest; he proclaimed the sacred feasts, and, in a word, he 
superintended the whole concerns of religious worship, and 
evidently took the lead in them himself. He was ἃ προεσ- 
τώς, OY an ἐπέσχυπος, a superintendent or overseer, and also a 
διδάσχαλος, teacher, in a greater or less degree. Comp. John 
ili. 10. The best account of his office is in Schoettgen, Ho- 
rae Heb. p. 1089, seq., who has pointed out some errors and 
deficiencies of Vitringa. The nature of the case shows that 
the superior officer is, in this instance, and should be, ad- 
dressed. He is probably called the angel of the church in 
conformity to the Hebrew Chaldee prov 3 ν (possibly in 
reference to Hag. i. 13, or Mal. ii. 7), and may be called 
legatus ecclesiae, because he is delegatus ab ecclesia, delegated 
by the church, to render their public devotions to God and 
superintend their social worship. Exactly the limits of the — 
office and its specific duties neither the word ἄγγελος ex- 
plains, nor does the context give us any particular informa- 
tion.” * 

The learned Origen affirms that the angels of the churches 
were the προεστῶτες, the presiding presbyters, the same of 
whom Justin, Tertullian and Clemens Alexandrinus speak, 
in the extracts which are given below, in their order.” 

The exposition given below is from the learned Dr. De- 
litzsch, the associate of Dr. Ftirst, in preparing his Hebrew 
“Concordance. The writer is a man of profound erudition 
in all that relates to Hebrew and Rabbinical literature, and 
has furnished the article for us at our particular request : 

“The ἄγγελοι τῆς ἐχχλησίας, angels of the churches, are the 
bishops; or, what in my opinion is the same in the apostol- 
ical churches, the presbyters of the churches. The expres- 

37 Stuart on Rey. ad locum. 

38 ἸΙροεστῶτας τινὰς τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν ἀγγέλους λέγεσϑαι Tapa τῶ ᾿Ιωάννῃ 


ἐν τῇ ἀποκαλύψει. 


EQUALITY OF BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS. 149 


sion, like many others in the New Testament, is derived 
from the synagogue, which may be regarded as the parent 
source of the Christian church, having remained essentially 
unchanged for a long time after the overthrow of the tem- 
ple service. The office of the “ξν provi corresponds en- 
tirely with that of bishop or presbyter of the apostolical 
churches. 

1. “The 5::y πο bears this name as the delegatus eccle- 
siae, the delegate of the church, who was elected by them 
to exercise and enjoy the privileges and prerogatives of a 
presiding officer in their assemblies. It was his duty to pray 
in the name of the assembly, to lead in the reading of the’ 
Scriptures, to blow the trumpet, the sayy, on the opening 
of a new year; and, in the absence of those who belonged 
to the priesthood, the p75, to pronounce the Aaronitic 
benediction. So far as the performance of this rite is con- 
cerned, the priests themselves are the s3ny πὴ. The 
original passages are given by Schoettgen.” So high and 
important was the office of this Ὑ:Ξν prov, and so nearly did 
it correspond with that of bishop or presbyter, that the 
name of the former might be applied to the latter. 

“The signification of the term may also be learned from 
the Aramaean term, the ΝᾺ ἼΡ: This officer of the syna- 
gogue, the s:5¥ movi, was regarded as bringing before 
God the prayers of the people, which were considered as 
their spiritual offerings. It appears from the Jerusalem 
Talmud that when one was invited to ascend the pulpit to 
offer public prayers, the language of the invitation was not 
‘Come and pray,’ but ‘Come hither and present our offer- 
ing,’ ΔῈ Ρ my: ‘i 

“The office of the y-z¥ nvbu did not, indeed, include the 

89 Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae ad Apoc. 1, p. 1089, seq. 

40 Berachot, ο. 4, f. 206. Comp. Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vor- 


trige der Juden. 


13 * 


150 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


duty of a public teacher; for the office of public preaching 
was not established as a permanent institution, but had its 
origin within the period of the Christian dispensation. 

“ T have thus shown that the appellation angel of the church 
was used to designate the presiding officer of the Christian 
church, with particular reference to the Ἔξ mw of the 
synagogue. Still, as a name of an office, the angel of the 
church may have a meaning somewhat higher. Such a 
meaning it may have with reference, retrospectively, to 
the nim qn of the Old Testament." So that the angel 
of the church may, at the same time, denote the bishop or 
presbyter chosen by this Christian community to be the 
messenger or servant both of God and of the church. This 
call of the church is itself a vocatio divina, a divine calling ; 
and, according to the New Testament view of the subject, 
unites the idea of both offices in the same person.” 

Bengel, also, is of opinion that the angel of the church 
corresponds to the τιν mw, of the synagogue. “The He- 
brews had, in their synagogue, aa:sy mow a deputatum ec- 
clesiae, who, in reading, in prayer, ete., led the congrega- 
tion; and such a leader, also, had each of the seven 
churches of the Apocalypse.” ἢ 

The result is, that the angel of the churches, whatever 
view we take of the origin of the term, was not the repre- 
sentative of an order or grade superior to presbyters, but 
was himself merely a presbyter; or, if you please, a bishop 
—provided you mean by it simply what the Scriptures 
always mean—the pastor of a church, the ordinary and 
only minister. The New Testament never recognizes more 
than one church in a city. This fact of itself precludes the 


41 Comp. Malachi 11. 7, and Haggai i. 13. 

# Erklirte Offenbarung, 8. 216. For a further illustration of the 
opinions of the learned, the reader is referred to Campbell’s Lectures 
on Eccl. Hist. pp. 82-88. Whately, Kingdom of Christ, pp. 246-250. 


EQUALITY OF BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS. [106] 


supposition that the angel of the church could have been a 
diocesan having in the same city several churches under 
his authority. 


II. It remains to consider the historical argument for the 
original equality and identity of bishops and presbyters. 

This equality and identity was fully recognized in the 
early church, and continued to be acknowledged as an 
historical fact, even after the establishment of the hierarchy, 
down to the time of the Reformation. The historical argu- 
ment comprised in this proposition may be resolved into 
several particulars, each of which serves to show that both 
the early fathers and later historians regarded presbyters 
and bishops as belonging originally to the same grade or 
order of the clergy, and as being equal in their rights and 
privileges. 


1. Presbyters are designated by the fathers by names 
and titles similar to those of bishops. 

2. Presbyters, like bishops, are carefully distinguished 
from the deacons, the second order of the clergy ; and in 
such a manner as to show that both presbyters and bishops 
are indiscriminately and equally the representatives of the 
first order. 

3. Bishops, themselves, in their ministerial character, 
exercised only the jurisdiction, and performed merely the 
offices, of presbyters in the primitive churches. 

4, The original equality of bishops and presbyters contin- 
ued to be acknowledged from the rise of the episcopal 
hierarchy down to the time of the Reformation. 


1. Presbyters are designated in the writings of the early 
fathers by names and titles similar to those of bishops. 
They speak sometimes of bishops and sometimes of pres- 


152 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


byters as the presiding officers of the church, and then 
again of both indiscriminately, as being one and the same 
in rank. To both they ascribe the same or similar names 
and titles, such as seniors, elders, chairmen, moderators, 
presidents, etc., all indicating identity of office and equality 
in rank. Even when the first place is assigned to the 
bishop, he is only chief among equals, just as in a modern 
presbytery or association one is promoted to the office of 
moderator, to which all are alike eligible.* 


48 We have brought together in parallel columns some of the names 
and titles which are ascribed to bishops and presbyters severally. The 
intelligent reader will readily perceive the similarity of the titles 
given to both, and the identity of their significations : 


TITLES OF BISHOPS. TITLES OF PRESBYTERS. 
᾿Επίσκοποι, πρεσβύτεροι, πρόεδροι, ᾿Επίσκοποι,Σ πρεσβύτεροι, πρό- 
προιστάμενοι, ἔφοροι, ἄρχοντες ἐκ- edpol,t προεστῶτες͵ ἃ προστάται. } 
κλησιῶν, προεστῶτες. 

Praesides, praepositi; praesi- Praepositi, antistites, majores 
dentes, superattendentes, superin- natu, seniores, seniores plebis, 
tendentes, pastores, patres eccle- sacerdotes, ete. 
siae, vicarli, praesules, antistites, 
antistites sacrorum, seniores, etc. 

These and several other titles are given in the author’s Antiquities, 
pp. 70, 94; in Riddle, Christ. Antiq. pp. 161, 229; in Baumgarten, 
Erliiuterungen, S. 75, 94; and in Rheinwald, 8. 30, 45. Obviously 
‘the titles of both are synonymous, and are applied indiscriminately to 
both bishops and presbyters, to denote one and the same office. Rid- 
dle, Christ. Antig. p. 230. Blondell justly remarks that “ the use of 
such terms creates no difficulty, and for the reason that, even after a 
distinction was made between bishops and presbyters in the second 
century by the decision of the churches, both continued to be dis- 


* Chrysost. Hom. 1, in Phil. I. p. 8. Hom.11,in 1 Tim. 3. Theodoret, in Phil. i. 1; 
ii. 25. Jerome, ad Tit. 1, and Ep. 83, 85. Schol. in Epist. ad Nepotian. 

+ Greg. Naz. Orat. I. Basil, Reg. Morali, 71. 

1 Synesius, Ep. 12. 

ὃ Greg. Naz. Orat. I. Basil, M. Regula Morali. 

|| Chrysost. Hom. 11, in 1 Tim. 4. Stillingfleet, Irenicum, p. 278, Phil. ed. Comp, 


Rom. xii. 8. 


EQUALITY OF BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS. 103 


2. Presbyters, like bishops, arz carefully distinguished 
from the deacons, the second order of the clergy, and in 
such a manner as to show that both presbyters and bishops 
are indiscriminately and equally the representatives of the 
first order. 

Several of the earliest fathers distinctly recognize but 
two orders of the priesthood. Those of the first order are 
sometimes denominated presbyters, sometimes bishops, and 
then again bishops and presbyters indiscriminately. It is 
worthy of particular notice, that while bishops and presby- 
ters are confounded one with another, they are uniformly 
distinguished from the deacons, the second order of the 
priesthood. Whatever be the title by which the clergy of 
the first order are called, we are in no danger of mistaking 
them for the second. 

Clement of Rome, about A. D. 96, is our first authority. 
His epistle addressed to the Corinthians, is the earliest and 
most authentic of all the writings of the apostolical fathers. 
By the early Christians it was publicly read in their re- 
ligious assemblies, in the same manner as the apostolical 
epistles.* And, by ecclesiastical writers generally nothing 
that is not divine is admitted to be of higher authority. 
This revered father recognizes but two orders of the priest- 
hood—bishops and deacons, ἐπισχόπους χαὶ διακόνους. He 
gives not the least intimation of the existence of an indi- " 
vidual diocesan bishop at Corinth; but uniformly speaks 


tinguished indiscriminately by the same appellation.”—Apologia pro 
Hieron. p. 92. Comp. Gieseler’s Ch. Hist. Vol. I. pp. 90, 91. Tr. 

Blondell has collected the following as the epithets applied to pres- 
byters by Gregory Nazianzen, 7 387: Ποιμένες, ἱερεῖς, πρέχοντες, 
προεστῶτες, προστάται, ἄρχοντες, νυμφίοι, νυμφαγωγοὶ των ψυχῶν καὶ 
πρωμνήστορες, κεφαλὴ Χριστῦυ πληρώματος---8}}] appropriate appella- 
tions of bishops, Apol. p. 64. 

#4 Euseb. Eccl. Hist. Lib. 3, ο. 13. 

Ge 


154 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


of the presbyters of that church, whom the Corinthians had 
rejected, as belonging to the highest order. ‘“ The apostles 
preaching in countries and cities appointed the first fruits 
of their labors to be bishops and deacons, having proved 
them by the Spirit.” These are the two orders of the 
ministry, as originally appointed by the apostles. “It 
were a grievous sin,” he proceeds to say, “to reject those 
who have faithfully fulfilled the duties of their episcopal 
office ; and immediately adds, ‘‘ blessed are those presbyters 
who have finished their course and entered upon their re- 
ward ;”* blessed are those presbyters, who have thus faith- 
fully performed the duties of their episcopal office; bishops 
and presbyters being used interchangeably as equally de- 
scriptive of the same order. This passage establishes the 
identity of bishops and presbyters in the opinion of this 
venerable author, who may be understood to express the 
prevailing opinion both at Rome and at Corinth. “Clem- 
ent himself was not even aware of the distinction between 
bishops and presbyters—terms which in fact he uses as 
synonymous.” ἢ 

Polycarp is our next witness. This father was familiar 
with those who had seen our Lord. He was the disciple 
of John the Apostle, and is supposed by many to be the 
angel of the church at Smyrna, in Rev. ii. 8. Such was 
’ the respect in which his epistle was held by the primitive 
Christians that it was publicly read in their churches until 

45 Κατὰ χώρας οὖν καὶ πόλεις κηρύσσοντες καϑίστανον τὰς ἀπαρχὰς 
αὐτῶν, δοκιμάσαντες τῷ πνεύματι, εἰς ἐπισκόπους καὶ διακόνους τῶν μελ- 
λόντων πιστεύειν.---- Epist. ad Cor. ἢ 42, p. 57. 

46 Αμαρτία γὰρ ov μικρὰ ἡμῖν ἔσται, ἐὰν τοὺς ἀμέμπτως καί ὁσίως 
προσενέγκοντας τὰ δῶρα τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς ἀποβάλωμεν. Μακάριοι οἱ 
προ οδοιπορήσαντες πρεσβύτεροι, οἵτινες ἔγκαρπον καὶ τελείαν ἔσχον 
τὴν avadvoww.—Epist. ad Cor. ὃ 44, p. 58. 

4 Christ. Riddle, Antiq. p. 5. Comp. Waddington’s Church Hist. 
p.35, Campbell’s Lectures, p. 72. 


EQUALITY OF BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS. 155 


the fourth century. This valuable relic of antiquity, the 
date of which is usually assigned to the year 140, harmon- 
izes in a remarkable degree with that of Clement in recog- 
nizing but two orders of the clergy.* The first it denomi- 
nates presbyters. Bishops are not once named in all the 
epistle. These presbyters are the inspectors and rulers of 
the church, having authority to administer its discipline 
and to exercise all the functions of its highest officers. 

The conclusion, therefore, is inevitable that bishop and 
presbyter were still used interchangeably, and that both 
Paul and Polycarp speak of the same class of officers. 
Clement and Polycarp were contemporaries and survivors 
of the apostles. They resided, the one at Rome, the other 
in Asia Minor. They represent distinct portions of the 
Christian church, remote from each other, and widely dif- 
ferent in language, in government and in national peculiar- 
ities. 

It is also particularly noticeable that Polycarp specifies 
the qualifications necessary both for deacons “ and for pres- 
byters ; ἢ and, like Paul the Apostle on a similar occasion, 
Tit. 1. 5-9, makes no mention of what is proper in the con- 
duct and character of a bishop. 

A letter of Pius of Rome, A. D. 142-157, if received as 
genuine, is perhaps the earliest recognition of bishops as a 
distinct order, but they have still no official superiority. 
“Let the elders and deacons respect you, not as a superior, 
but as a servant of Christ.” ” 

Justin Martyr, the Christian philosopher, who suffered 
martyrdom A. D. 165, two years before the death of Poly- 


48 Διὸ δέον ἀπέχεσϑαι ἀπὸ πάντων τούτων ὑποτασσομένους τοῖς πρεσ- 
βυτέροις kai διακόνοις ὡς Θεῷ καὶ Χριστῷ.---Αα. Phil. c. 6. 

# Ep. c. 5. δ Ep.e 6: 

51 Presbyteri et diaconi, non ut majorem, sed ut ministrum Christi 
observent. Cited by Killen. 


156 - THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


carp, offers further confirmation of these views of the sub- 
ject. In his description of public worship, after mentioning 
prayers and the fraternal salutation, he says: “There is 
brought to him who presides over the brethren, τῷ προεσ- 
τῶτι τῶν ἀδελφῶν, bread and a cup of water, and wine; and 
he, taking them, offers up praise and glory to the Father 
of the universe, through the name of the Son and the Holy 
Ghost, and renders thanks for these his gifts. At the close 
of his petition and thanksgivings, all the people present say 
Amen; which, in the Hebrew language, signifies so may tt 
be. And he who presides having given thanks, and the 
whole assembly having expressed their assent, they who 
are called among us deacons, διάχονοι, distribute the bread 
and the wine and water to each of those who are present, 
to partake of that which has been blessed. Also they carry 
to those who are not present.” ” 

His testimony in the passage above cited is that two or- 
ders only officiated in their public worship and in their 
celebration of the eucharist. Soon after this he again de- 
scribes their mode of public worship and of communion, 
and specifies the same officiating officers, the president of 
the brethren, and the deacons.” Nothing indicates any 


52 Αδελφοὶ κοιν ἃ ς εὐχὰς ποιησόμενοι ὑπέρ τε ἑαυτῶν καὶ τοῦ φωτισϑέντος 
καὶ ἄλλων πανταχοῦ πάντων εὐτόνως. --- — ἀλλήλους φιλήματι ἀσπαζόμεϑα 
παυσάμενοι τῶν εὐχῶν. ἔπειτα προσφέρεται τῷ προεστῶτι τῶν 
> ~ ¥ Ν iA ig Ν 4 Ν ξ Ν se 
ἀδελφῶν ἄρτος καὶ ποτήριον ὕδατος καὶ κράματος, Kal οὗτος λαβὼν, aivov 
καὶ δόξαν τῷ πατρὶ τῶν ὕλων, διὰ τοῦ; ὀνόματος τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ πνεύματος 

- ς ΄ὔ 7 πὰ Ν ᾽ 7 e Ν - - /, 
τοῦ ἁγίου, ἀναπέμπει καὶ εὐχαριστίαν ὑπὲρ τοῦ κατηξιῶσϑαι τού- 
των παῤ αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ πολὺ ποιεῖται. οὐ συντελέσαντος τὰς εὐχὰς καὶ τὴν 

, , ~ τ N x ᾽ ~ ΄ ᾽ , ’ , 
εὐχαριστίαν, πᾶς ὁ παρὼν λαὸς ἐπευφημεῖ λέγων, ᾿Αμήν.----εοὐχαριστήσαντος 
δὲ τοῦ προεστῶτος, καὶ ἐπευφημήσαντος παντὸς τοῦ λαοῦ, οἱ κελούμενοι παῤ 
ἡμῖν διάκονοι, διδόασιν ἑκάστῳ τῶν παρόντων μεταλαβεῖν..---- Αοϊ. 1, α. 
65, p. 82. Comp. Semisch’s Justin Martyr. Trans. Edinburgh, 
1848. Vol. I. pp. 28, 29. 

88. 4 i ‘ 

Apol. 1, c. 67, p. 83. 


EQUALITY OF BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS. 157 


higher order or office than that of the officiating presbyter 
who conducted their worship and administered the sacra- 
ment; or if you call him bishop, he is still of the same or- 
der, distinguished clearly from the deacons, but differing in 
no wise from the order of presbyters.™* 

The authority of Irenaeus is claimed on both sides. He 
lived in the transition period, toward the close of the 
second century, and represents the office in a confused, 
transition state. He speaks of Hyginus, the eighth in the 
episcopal succession in Rome, and of bishops appointed by 
the apostles. But he makes only a relative distinction be- 
tween bishops and presbyters; recognizes the succession of 
presbyters in the same sense as of bishops, and calls the 
bishops of Rome presbyters, implying no clear distinction 
between bishops and presbyters as separate officers. The 
passages are given in the margin.” 

Irenaeus, a Greek of Asia Minor, was in his youth a 
hearer of the venerable Polycarp, the disciple of Jvhn. 
He spent his advanced life in Gaul, at Lyons, and died 
about the commencement of the third century, probably 
A. D. 202. Speaking of Marcion, Valentinus, Cerinthus, 
and other heretics, he says: “ When we refer them to that 
apostolic tradition, which is preserved in the churches, 
through the succession of their presbyters, these men oppose 


5¢ Respecting this office of the προεστώς τῶν αδελφῶν, compare Mil- 
ton’s Prelatical Episcopacy, Prose Works, Vol. I. p. 76. 

ὅδ Cum autem ad eam iterum traditionem, quae est ab Apostolis, 
quae per successiones Presbyterorum in ecclesiis custoditur, provoca- 
mus eos: adversantur traditioni, dicentes, se non solum Presbyteris, 
sed etiam Apostolis existentes sapientiores, sinceram invenisse veri- 
tatem.—TIrenaeus, Adv. Haer. L. 3, c. 2, 3 2, p. 175. 

Traditionem itaque Apostolorum in toto mundo manifestatam in 
omni ecclesia adest respicere omnibus, qui vera velint videre; et ha- 
bemus annumerare eos, qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in ec- 
clesiis.— Irenaeus, c. 3, 2 1, p. 175, et ἢ 2, ibid. 

14 


158 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


x 


the tradition.” The author, in the next section, again 
styles these same presbyters, bishops. “ We can enumerate 
those who were constituted by the apostles, bishops in the 
churches ; their successors, also, even down to our time.” 

But the very same traditions and successions, which are 
here ascribed to the bishops, are just above assigned also to 
the presbyters. 


Again, he speaks in a similar connection, of Polycarp, as 
a bishop; but, in another place, he styles him that blessed 
and apostolic presbyter, ἐχεῖνυς 6 μαχάριος zat ἀποστολιχὸς 
πρεσβύτερος Ὁ 

Again, “ We ought to obey those presbyters in the church, 
who have succession, as we have shown, from the apostles ; 
who, with the succession of the episcopate, received the 
certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the 
Father.” ἢ 

We cannot fail to observe that the terms bishop and pres- 
byter are used by this ancient father as perfectly convertible 


56 Euseb. Eccl. Hist. Lib. 5, c. 20. 

57 Quapropter eis, qui in ecclesiis sunt, Presbyteris obaudire oportet, 
his, qui successiunem habent ab Apostolis, sicut ostendimus; qui cum 
Episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum 
Patris acceperunt, ete. After this: Qui vero crediti quidem sunt a 
multis esse Presbytert, serviunt autem suis voluptatibus, et non prae- 
ponunt timorem Dei in cordibus suis, sed contumeliis agunt reliquos, 
et principalis consessionis tumore elati sunt et in absconsis agunt mala, 
et dicunt, nemo nos videt, redarguentur a verbo, ete-—Ab omnibus 
igitur talibus absistere oportet, adhaerere vero his, qui et Apostolorum, 
sicut praediximus, doctrinam custodiunt, et cum Presbyterti ordine ser- 
monem sanum et conyersationem sine offensa praestant, ad confirma- 
tionem et correptionem ceterorum. Finally, Τοιούτους U peo Bur é- 
ρους ἀνατρέφει ἡ ἐκκλησία, περὶ ὧν καὶ ὁ προφήτης φησίν δώσω τοὺς 
ἄρχοντάς σου ἐν εἰρήνῃ καὶ τοὺς ἐπισκόπους év OtKawovvy.—Trenaeus, 
L. 4, c. 26, 3 2,.3, 4, p. 262; καὶ 5, 263. 

Qui ergo relinquunt praeconium ecclesiae imperitiam sanctorum 
presbyterorum arguunt, non contemplantes quanto pluris sit idiota re- 


EQUALITY OF BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS. 109 


terms. Bishops he denominates presbyters; and presby- 
ters, bishops, and ascribes the episcopate to presbyters. 

We are not ignorant of the gloss that is given to these 
passages from Irenaeus, in the endeavor to defend the 
theory of an original distinction between bishops and pres- 
byters. But the consideration of the episcopal argument is 
foreign to our purpose. The authorities are before the 
reader; and of their obvious meaning, any one is competent 
to form an independent, unaided judgment. 

Titus Flavius Clemens, commonly known as Clement of 
Alexandria, lived at the close of the second and the begin- 
ning of the third century. He was at the head of the cele- 
brated school at Alexandria, the preceptor of Origen, and 
the most learned man of his age. He speaks indeed of 
presbyters, bishops and deacons. After citing from the 
epistles various practical precepts, he proceeds to say that 
“numerous other precepts also, directed to select characters, 
have been written in the sacred books, some to presbyters, 
some to bishops, some to deacons, and others to widows.” ” 
In this: enumeration he appears to have followed the order 
of the apostle in Tit. 1. 5-7, mentioning presbyters first. 
He repeatedly shows, however, that there were at that time 
but two orders—deacons and presbyters.” 

In his treatise, “ What rich man can be saved?’ Clem- 
ent relates that John the apostle observing a young man 
of singular beauty, turning to the bishop who presided over 
all, commended him to his care in the presence of the 
church, and “this presbyter,’ taking home the young man 


ligiosus a blasphemo et impudente sophista, L. 5, ο. 20, 2 2. In the 
preceding section, he says, Omnes enim valde posteriores sunt quam 
episcopt quibus apostoli tradiderunt ecclesias. @ 1. 

** Paedag. Lib. 3, p. 264. Comp. also Strom. Lib. 6, p. 667. 

59 ‘Quoiwe δὲ καὶ κατὰ THY ἐκκλησίαν, THY μὲν βελτιοτικην οἱ πρεσβύτεροι 
σὧζο σιν, εἰκόνα τὴν ὑπερτικὴν οἱ διάκονοι. ----(Δέγοηι. Lib. 7, p. 700. 


100 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


that had been committed to his care, nourished, educated 
and lost him. Thus Clement uses interchangeably the 
terms, bishop and presbyter, to designate the same person, 
and makes John address, as bishop, one who was, notwith- 
standing, a mere presbyter. ‘“ In this author we find a pres- 
bytery and deacons only, which is as forcible an exclusion 
of a third order, whether superior or intermediate, as can 
be reasonably expected from a writer who had no know- 
ledge of a third.” © 

The account of Tertullian again, contemporary with 
Clement, both having died the same year, A. D. 220, har- 
monizes in a remarkable manner with that of Justin Mar- 
tyr, as exhibited above. In describing the worship of 
Christian assemblies, he observes : “Certain approved elders, 
seniores, preside.” Aged men never presided by virtue of 
their age in ancient Christian assemblies. Besides, the 
passage indicates that these presidents were chosen to their 
office. The president is also denominated in the same 
chapter, antistes, a term exactly corresponding to that of 
πρυεστῶς in Justin. 

Tertullian represents the church of Africa, in which the 
episcopal government was earliest developed; but even in 
these churches the apostolical order had not yet been fully 
superseded by the hierarchy. The sum of his testimony, 
as well as of that of all who have gone before him, is, that 
there was but one order in the church superior to that of 
deacons. Tertullian stands “on the boundary between two 
different epochs in the development of the church.” Hence- 
forth the bishop assumes more prominence, but as yet he 


6) Chap. 42, pp. 667, 669, vol. 7, Sanct. Pat. Op. Polemica. 

6! Praesident probati quique seniores honorem istum non pretio, sed 
testimonio adepti; neque enim pretio ulla res Dei constat.—A pol. 
c. 39. 


EQUALITY OF BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS. [6] 


has not begun to be acknowledged as of an order superior 
to presbyters. 

What if Tertullian, Clement, Irenaeus and others tell us 
of bishops? “It remains yet to be evinced out of this and 
the like places, which will never be, that the word bishop 
is otherwise taken than in the language of St. Paul and the 
Acts for an order above presbyters. We grant them bish- 
ops, we grant them worthy men, we grant them placed in 
several churches by the apostles, we grant that Irenaeus 
and Tertullian affirm this; but that they were placed in a 
superior order above the presbytery, show from all these 
words why we should grant. It is not enough to say that 
the apostle left this man bishop in Rome and that other in 
Ephesus, but to show when they altered their own decree 

set down by St. Paul, and made all the presbyters under- 
lings to one bishop.” “ἢ 

To sum up all that has been said on the patristic identity 
of presbyters and bishops: they are known by the same 
names, they are required to possess the same qualifications, 
they discharge the same duties; they are therefore equal 
and identical in rank, office and duties—in all respects one 
and the same. ‘This course of argumentation is precisely 
similar to that by which orthodoxy defends the supreme 
divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ and his equality with the 
Father. And none perhaps more readily admit the validity 
of this mode of argument, when applied to this cardinal 
principle in the Christian system, than the members of the 


6 Milton’s Prelatical Episcopacy, Prose Works, Vol. I. p. 85. 
Constituit evangelista Marcus una cum Hakania patriarcha duodecim 
presbyteros qui nempe cum patriarcha manerent adeo ut cum vacaret 
patriarchates, unum ex duodecim presbyteris eligerent, cujus capiti 
reliqui undecim manus imponentes ipsi benedicerent et patriarcham 
ercarent.—Eutychii Patriarchae Alexandr. Annal. interpr. Poverbio. 
Oxon. 1658, I. p. 331. 

14 * 


162 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. Ἂ 


Episcopal communion. He is called by the names, He pos- 
sesses the attributes, He receives the honors and performs 
the works of the Father, and therefore is one with Him. 
If, then, this course of reasoning commands our assent in 
these profound mysteries, why not much more in the case 
under consideration? We confidently rest in the conclu- 
sion of the learned Dr. Wilson, that “whatever miscon- 
structions of the presbyterial office may have obtained, it 
is and always will be the highest ordinary office in the 
Christian church; and no presbyter, who is officially such, 
can be less than a bishop, and authorized to instruct, govern 
and administer, and ordain at least in conjunction with his 
co-presbyters of the same presbytery and council.” 


3. Bishops themselves, in their ministerial character, ex- 
ercised only the jurisdiction and performed merely the offices 
of presbyters in the primitive church. 

Tenatius speaks of bishops, presbyters and deacons, and, 
in strains almost of profane adulation, exalts the authority 
both of bishops and presbyters. But the learned need not 
be reminded that suspicion rests upon all the epistles of 
Ignatius. Many, both in this country and in Europe, most 
competent to decide upon their merits, have pronounced 
them undoubted forgeries. No reliance can be placed 
upon them as historical authority. The most probable 
opinion, and generally received, is, that they are filled with 
interpolations from various hands and of different dates, 
and are wholly unreliable. Such is Dr. Neander’s opinion, 
as stated to the writer in conversation upon them.” 

But let us admit the genuineness and authenticity of the 
epistles of Ignatius; his bishops are nothing more than the 
pastors each of a single congregation—merely parish minis- 


65 Comp. Milton’s Prelatical Episcopacy, Prose Works, Vol. I. pp. 
79, 80. 


Φ EQUALITY OF BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS. 163 


ters, parochial bishops. Though bearing the name of bishop, 
they are as unlike a modern diocesan as can well be imag- 
ined. This fact deserves a careful consideration. Let us 
not deceive ourselves with a name, a title. We are not 
inquiring after names, but things. The name determines 
nothing in regard to the official rank and duties of a primi- 
tive bishop. Give to a Congregational or Presbyterian min- 
ister this title, and you have made him truly a primitive 
bishop. These ancient dignitaries down to the third cen- 
tury, and in many instances even later, exercised no wider 
jurisdiction and performed no higher offices than a modern 
presbyter or any pastor of a single parish or congregation. 


In support of the foregoing representation we have to 
offer the following considerations : 

(a) By all primitive writers, the bishop’s charge is de- 
nominated invariably a church, a congregation; never in the 
plural, churches or congregations. 

(6) The Christians under the charge of one of these an- 
cient bishops were all accustomed to meet in one place, like 
the people of a modern parish or congregation. 

(c) All under his charge were, in many instances, as fa- 
miliarly known to the bishop himself as are the people of a 
parish to their pastor. 

(d) So many bishops were found in a single territory, of 
limited extent, that no one could have exercised a jurisdic- 
tion beyond the bounds of a single parish. 

(6) The charge of a primitive bishop is known, in many 
instances, not to have equaled that of a modern presbyter 
or pastor. 


(a) By all primitive writers the bishop’s charge is de- 
nominated invariably a church, a congregation; never in 
the plural, churches or congregations. 


104 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. - 


As the epistles of Paul the Apostle are addressed to the 
church at Rome, at Corinth, at Ephesus, etc., so those of 
the apostolical fathers, Clement, Polycarp and Ignatius, are 
addressed, in like manner, to a single church—to the church 
at Corinth, at Philippi, at Ephesus, at Smyrna, ete. Neither 
is the word church ever used by the early fathers in a gen- 
eric sense, for a national or provincial church, as we speak 
of the Church of England or of Scotland. This fact is wor- 
thy of particular attention as illustrative of the nature of a 
bishop’s office. It presents his duties and his office in total 
contrast with those which are assigned to him by prelacy. 
It reveals to us the primitive bishop as merely a parish 
minister. “The epistles of the Apostle Paul give the clear- 
est evidence that all the Christians of one city, from the be- 
ginning and ever after, formed one whole church.” Such 
is the explicit declaration of Neander. “A council of elders 
was everywhere set over the churches to conduct their 
affairs.” 

In the sense above stated, the word in question is said to 
be used at least six hundred times in the writings of Euse- 
bius alone.” 

“As for the word diocese, by which the bishop’s flock is 
now expressed, I do not remember that ever I found it used 
in this sense by any of the ancients. But there is another 
word still retained by us, by which they frequently denomi- 
nated the bishop’s cure, and that is parish.” © 

Instead, therefore, of presiding over thousands of his 
fellow-men with an authority which even princes might 
envy, this ancient bishop was nothing more than an humble 
parish minister, having the charge of some little flock, over 


64 Comp. Campbell’s Lectures, pp. 106, 107, and Davidson’s Eccle- 
siastical Polity, p. 75. 
6° King’s Primitive Church, p. 16. 


EQUALITY OF BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS. 165 


whom he had been duly appointed an overseer in the ser- 
vice of the chief Shepherd. 


(ὁ) The Christians, under the charge of these ancient 
bishops, were accustomed to meet in one place, like the 
people of a modern parish or congregation. 

This is most clearly evident from the fathers of the 
second, and even of the third century, such as Ignatius,” 
Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Cyprian. From 
the writings of these fathers it is evident that the whole 
flock assembled in the same place, ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό, 

This position has been indisputably established by Clark- 
son, and may be assumed as another illustration of the 
parochial episcopacy, which, in the ancient church, re- 
stricted the labors of the minister of Christ to a single 
church and congregation.” 


(6) All under the bishop’s charge were, in some instances, 
as familiarly known to him as are the people of a parish to 
their pastor. 

Polyearp, for example, bishop of Smyrna, is exhorted by 
Tenatius to know all of his church by name, even the men- 
servants and maid-servants; to take care of the widows 
within his diocese; to take cognizance personally of all 
marriages; and to suffer nothing to escape his notice.® 

All this requires of the bishop a personal acquaintance 
with the people of his charge, even more familiar, and a 

66 For the present purpose we may safely appeal to Ignatius; for 
though his works may be reasonably suspected of having been inter- 
polated to aggrandize the episcopal order, they have never been sus- 
pected of any interpolation with a view to lessen it. 

6&7 PD. Clarkson’s Works. No Evidence for Diocesan Churches. 
Diocesan Churches not yet Discovered in the Primitive Churches. 
Comp. Campbell’s Lectures, p. 109. 

68 "RE ὀνόματος πάντας ζήτει, Δούλους καὶ δούλας μὴ ὑπερηφάνει, 


Χῆραι μὴ ἀμελείσϑωσαν .----Ισπαΐζι8. ad Polycarp, ο. 4. 


» ‘ 

wy 66 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 

. personal supervision over them more minute, than that of 
the pastor of a single parish in any of our cities. Even the 
diocese of the bishop of Tyre was so small that he had a per- 
sonal knowledge of every Christian within it.” Carthage, 
again, was one of the largest cities in the world; and yet 
Cyprian, the bishop of that city, made it a duty to preserve 
a familiar acquaintance with all his people, and to provide 
for the needy and destitute among them.” To such primi- 
tive episcopacy who can object ? 


(d) The bishops, in a single territory of limited extent, 
were so numerous that no one could have exercised juris- 
diction beyond the bounds of a single parish. 

Take, for example, a single province, that of Africa; and 
in doing this, we avail ourselves of the inquiries of another. 
“The testimony of Du Pin on this point, himself a pre- 
latist, is invaluable. He describes, in the first place, the 
ancient province of Africa, as nearly commensurate with 
the modern Barbary States, and then proceeds to remark 
as follows: 

““Tn these parts it was customary to appoint bishops not 
only in great cities, but in villages, or villas, and in small 
cities (in vicis aut villis et in modicis civitatibus); which was 
guarded against by the 57th canon of the Council of Lao- 
dicea, and the 6th canon of that of Sardica. But that rule 
obtained, not in Africa, where it is on record that bishops 
were ordained not only in great cities, but in all the towns 


69 Schoene, Geschichtsforschungen, Bd. IIT. 8. 336. 

τὸ Cumque ego vos pro me vicarios miserim ut expungeretis neces- 
sitates fratrum nostrorum sumptibus, si qui vellent suas artes exercere, 
additamento quantum satis esset desideria eorum juvaretis, simul 
etiam et aetates eorum et conditiones et merita discerneretis; ut etiam 
nunc ego, cut cura incumbit omnes optimé nosse et dignos quosque, et 


humiles et mites ad ecclesiasticae administrationis officia promoverem. 
— Ep. 38, p. 51. 


΄ ; »" 
EQUALITY OF BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS. 167 


(in cunctis oppidis), and not unfrequently in villages and 
military stations (in vicis et castellis); which multitude of 
bishops’ sees, that had sprung up even from the very first 
rise of the African churches, was increased by the emula- 
tion of the Catholics and Donatists.’” 

“ Du Pin adds, ‘We have drawn out of ancient documents 
the names of siz hundred and ninety bishoprics in Africa.’” 
He annexes a catalogue of names, and refers in every in- 
stance to the document or documents where they are found. 
With reason, therefore, he says, ‘there is not one of these 
that has not at some time a bishop, as may be gathered 
from ecclesiastical documents.’ ” 


(e) The charge of a primitive bishop is known in many 


*71 Du Pin’s Sacred Geography of Africa, prefixed to his edition of 
“The Seven Books of St. Optatus, bishop of Mileve in Africa,” on the 
schism of the Donatists, published at Paris, A. D, 1700, p. 57. Comp. 
Bingham’s Antiq. of Christ. Church, B. 2, ec. 12, @ 3. 

” Georg. Sac. Africae, p. 59. Schoene says, Geschichtsforschungen, 
Bd. ILI. 335, that in the time of Augustine there were nine hundred 
bishops in Africa. 

Of the Donatists, 279 were present, many more than 120 were ab- 
sent, and many of their bishoprics were vacant.— Opera, Vol. IX. p. 
374, F. 375, 376, A. Antwerp, 1700. 

Augustine also states that the Maximinianists were condemned by 
a council of 310 of the Donatists. Contra Parmeniam, Lib. 1, Tom. 
8, c. 18, p. 15, B. Contra Crescon. Don. Lib. 3, 6. 52, p. 315, E. Lib. 
4,¢.7, p. 831, D. The Donatists, moreover, themselves boasted that 
they had more than 400 bishops in Africa. Post. Coll. ο. 24, p. 411, 
D. In addition to all these, the Maximinianists afford another legion of 
bishops in this same province, 100 or more of whom condemned 
Priminianus. Contra Crescon. Don. Lib. 4, c. 6, p. 331, D., Post. 
Coll. ce. 30. We are now prepared to make up the roll of African 
bishops: Catholics, 426; Donatists, 400; Maximinianists, 100. Total, 
926—to say nothing of vacant sees. In such astonishing profusion. 
are these dioceses, these episcopal sees, scattered broadcast over the 
single province of Africa. 


108 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


instances not to have equaled that of a modern presbyter 
or pastor. 

Bishops were found in small villages and military sta- 
tions in Africa. Ischyrus was made bishop of a very small 
village, containing but few inhabitants.” Paul, one of the 
famous council of Nice, was only bishop of a fort, φρούριον, 
near the river Euphrates.“ Eulogius and Barses, monks 
of Edessa, had each no city, but only a monastery for a 
diocese; or rather their title was merely honorary, an empty 
name, with which no charge was connected.” Others again 
were bishops of cities where there were no Christians what- 
ever, and but few in the country round about.” 

An ancient canon provides that “if there should be a 
place having a few faithful men in it to the extent of twelve, 
they shall write to the churches round about for their chosen 
men to come and examine him who is thought worthy of 
the bishop’s degree.” Another canon directs him to ordain 
two or three presbyters.” Thus our bishop becomes the 
minister of a church of twelve members. 

The council of Sardica, c. 6, and of Laodicea, 6. 57, in 
the fourth century, denounced the custom of ordaining 
bishops “in villages and small cities, lest the authority of 
a bishop should be brought into contempt.” But a hun- 
dred years later, the custom still prevailed to a considerable 
extent. Even Gregory Nazianzen, one of the most learned 
and eloquent men of his age, worthy to have been “a pro- 
fessor of eloquence,” after having studied in Caesarea, in 

3 Koun βραχυτάτη, καὶ ὀλίγων avbporwv,—Athans. Apol. 2, Vol. I. 
p. 200. 

7 Theodoret, Eccl. Hist. Lib. 1, ec. 6. 

% Oi καὶ ἐπισκόπω ἄμφω ὕστερον ἐγενέϑην, οὐ πόλεως τινὸς ἀλλὰ τιμῆς 
ἕνεκεν... χειροτονηϑέντες ἐν τοῖς ἰδίοις μοναστηρίοις.---(δοκοηιεη, Eccl. 
Hist. Lib. 6, c. 34, p. 691. 


τὸ Schoene, Geschichtsforschungen, Bd. ITT. 8. 336, 
τ Bunsen’s Hippolytus, II. 805, III. 35, 36. 


EQUALITY OF BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS. 169 


Alexandria, and in Athens, was bishop, in the last half of 
the fourth century, first of Zazime, “a dismal” place, and 
afterward of Nazianzus, πόλεως ἐυτελοῦς, vilis oppidt, an 
inferior place. Even in the middle of the fifth century 
diocesan episcopacy was but partially established. In some 
countries “there were bishops over many cities,” but in 
others they were still “consecrated in villages,” χώμαις 
But we need not enlarge. If any one wishes for further 
information on this point, he has only to refer to Clarkson 
on Primitive Episcopacy, evincing a remarkable famil- 
iarity with the records of antiquity, in which facts almost 
innumerable have been brought together, all tending to 
show that the bishop of the primitive church had a charge 
no greater than a curate, or presbyter, or parish minister. 
Grant, then, to prelacy all her claims. Run back her 
“unbroken succession” to these days of primitive simpli- 
city, and it leads you up, not to an episcopal palace, but to 
the cottage, the cell, it may be, of an obscure curate. The 
modern bishop has only deceived himself with a name. 
While he reads of ancient bishops, he idly dreams of epis- 
copal powers and prerogatives that were unknown in the 
church until the days of Constantine the Great. But on 
examination the delusion vanishes. The far-spreading do- 
mains of the diocesan shrink into a little hamlet; the proud 
episcopal palace becomes a poor parsonage, and the lofty 
prelate a humble presbyter, the pastor of a little flock. 


The relations of the foregoing view to the exclusive valid- 
ity of episcopal ordination are forcibly presented in the fol- 
lowing passage from Clarkson in his Primitive Episcopacy : 

“Hereby some mistakes about episcopal ordinations, of 
ill consequence, may be rectified. A bishop, in the best 

78 Socrates, Eccl. Hist. Lib. 4, c. 26, p. 242. 
 Sozomen, Eccl. Hist. Lib. 7, ¢. 19, p. 734. 
15 H 


170 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


ages of Christianity, was no other than the pastor of a sin- 
gle church. <A pastor of a single congregation is now as 
truly a bishop. They were duly ordained in those ages 
who were set apart for the work of the ministry by the 
pastor of a single church, with the concurrence of some 
assistants. Why they should not be esteemed to be duly 
ordained who are accordingly set apart by a pastor of a 
single church now, I can discern no reason, after I have 
looked every way for it. Let something be assigned which 
will make an essential difference herein; otherwise they 
that judge such ordinations here and in other reformed 
churches to be nullities, will hereby declare all the ordina- 
tions in the ancient church for three or four hundred years 
to be null and void, and must own the dismal consequences 
that ensue thereof. They that will have no ordinations but 
such as are performed by one who has many churches un- 
der him, maintain a novelty never known nor dreamt of in 
the ancient churches while their state was tolerable. They 
may as well say the ancient church had never a bishop (if 
their interest did not hinder, all the reason they make use 
of in this case would lead them to it), as deny that a re- 
formed pastor has no power to ordain because he is not a 
bishop. He has episcopal ordination, even such as the’ 
canons require, being set apart by two or three pastors at 
least, who are as truly diocesans as the ancient bishops, for 
some whole ages.” ἡ 

The original equality of bishops and presbyters continued 
to be acknowledged from the rise of the episcopal hierarchy 
_ down to the time of the Reformation. 

The claims of prelatical episcopacy were attacked in the 
fifth century with great spirit by Jerome, who denied the 
superiority of bishops. Several passages from this author 

80 Primitive Episcopacy, pp. 182, 183. London, 1688. — Works, 
p. 241. 


EQUALITY OF BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS. 171 


have already been given under another head, to which we 
subjoin the following in his commentary on Titus 1. 5:* 
(a) JEROME expressly denies the superiority of bishops 
to presbyters, by divine right. To prove his assertion on 
this head, he goes directly to the Scriptures; and argues 
as the advocates of parity do, from the interchangeable 


81 Tdem est ergo Presbyter, qui et episcopus, et antequam diubolz 
instinctu, studia in religione fierent, et diceretur in populis: “Ego 
sum Pauli, ego Apollo, ego autem Cephae:” communi Presbyterorum 
consilio ecclesiae gubernabantur. Postquam vero unusquisque eos, 
quos baptizaverat, suos putabat esse, non Christi: i toto orbe decretum 
est, ut unus de Presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris ad quem omnis 
ecclesiae cura pertineret, et schismatum semina tollerentur. Putet ali- 
quis non scripturarum, sed nostram, esse sententiam Episcopum et 
Presbyterum unum esse; et aliud aetatis, aliud esse nomen officii; 
relegat Apostoli ad Philipenses verba dicentis; Paulus et Timotheus 
servi Jesu Christi, omnibus sanctis in Christo Jesu, qui sunt Philippis, 
eum Episcopis et Diaconis, gratia vobis et pax, et reliqua. Philippi 
una est urbs Macedoniae, et certe in una civitate plures ut nuncupan- 
tur, Episcopi esse non poterant. Sed quia eosdem Episcopos illo tempore 
quos et Presbyteros apellabant, propterea indifferentur de Episcopis 
quasi de Presbyteris est locutus. Adhuc hoc alicui videatur ambigu- 
um, nisi altero testimonio comprobetur. In Actibus Apostolorum 
scriptum est, quod cum venisset Apostolus Miletum miserit Ephesum, 
et vocaverit Presbyteros ecclesiae ejusdem, quibus postea inter caetera 
sit loentus; attendite vobis et omni gregi in quo vos Spiritus Sanctus 
posuit Episcopos, pascere Ecclesiam Domini, quam acquisivit per san- 
guinem suum. Et hoe diligentius observate, quo modo wnius civitatis 
Ephesi Presbyteros vocans, postea eosdem Episcopos dixerit—Haec 
propterea, ut ostenderemus apud veteres eosdem fuisse Presbyteros et 
Episcopos. Paulatim vero, ut dissentionum plantaria evellerentur, ad 
unum omnem solicitudinem esse delatam.—Sicut ergo Presbyteri sciwnt 
se ex ecclesiae consuetudine ei, qui sibi propositus fuerit, esse subjectos, 
ita Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam dispositionis domini- 
cae veritate, Presbyteris esse majores.—HIERONYMI Com. in Tit. I. 1, 
Opp. Vol. IV. p. 413, ed. Paris. 1693-1706. The same may be found 
in Rothe, 5. 209. Comp. Mason’s Works, Vol. III. pp. 225-228, 


172 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


titles of bishop and presbyter ;” from the directions given 
to them without the least intimation of difference in their 
authority ; and from the powers of presbyters, undisputed 
in his day. 

(6) JEROME states it as a historical fact, that this govern- 
ment of the churches by presbyters alone, continued until—to 
avoid scandalous quarrels and schisms, arising from the in- 
stigation of Satan—it was thought expedient to alter it ; 

(c) That this change in the government of the church, 
this creation of a superior order of ministers, took place, 
not at once, but by degrees—“Paulatim, by little and little;” 

(d) That the elevation of one presbyter over the others 
was a human contrivance; was not imposed by authority, 
but by the custom of the church; and that the presbyters of 
his day knew this very well; 

(e) That the first bishops were made by the presbyters 
themselves, and consequently they could neither have, nor 
communicate, any authority above that of presbyters. “Af- 
terward, to prevent schism, one was elected to preside over 
the rest.” Elected, commissioned by the presbyters ; for he 
immediately gives you a broad fact, which it is impossible 
to explain away, that “at Alexandria, from the evangelist 
Mark to the bishops Heraclas and Dionysius, until about 
the middle of the third century, the presbyters always chose 
one of their number as a president, and gave him the title 
of bishop.” * 

The testimony of Jerome affords an authentic record of 
the change that was introduced into the government of the 
church, and the causes that led to this change, by which 
the original constitution was wholly subverted. It was in 


82 Apud veteres iidem episcopi et presbyteri fuerint; quia illud 
nomen dignitatis, est; hoc, aetatis—Ep. ad Oceanum, Vol. LV. p. 648. 

88 Comp. Mason’s Works, Vol. III. pp. 233-251, and Jewel, De- 
fence of his Apology, pp. 122, 123. 


EQUALITY OF BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS. 173 


his day a known and acknowledged fact, that prelacy had 
no authority from Christ or his apostles—no divine right to 
sustain its high pretensions. ‘The presbyters know that 
they are subject to their bishops,’ not by divine right or 
apostolical succession, but “ by the custom of the church.” ™ 
And to the same effect is the admission of Augustine. 

The most distinguished of the Greek fathers also concur 
with those of the Latin church in regard to the identity of 
bishops and presbyters. Chrysostom, A. D. 407, in com- 
menting upon the apostle’s salutation of the bishops of 
Philippi, exclaims: ‘ How is this? Were there many bish- 
ops in one city? By no means; but he calls the presbyters 
by this name; for at that time both were so called. Where- 
fore, as I said, presbyters were anciently called bishops and 
stewards of Christ, and bishops were called presbyters. 
For this reason, even now, many bishops speak of their 
fellow-presbyter, and fellow-minister ; and finally the name 
of bishop and presbyter is given to each indiscriminately.” * 

Theodoret, also, who lived only a few years later than 
Chrysostom, exhibits substantially the same sentiments. 


86. Quanquam secundum honorum vocabula quae jam ecclesiae usus 
obtinuit, episcopatus presbyterio major sit.— Hp. et Hier., 19, alias 82, 
@ 33, Op. Vol. ΤΙ. col. 153. 

8 Σὺν ἐπισκόποις καὶ διακόνοις, τί τοῦτο » μιᾶς πόλεως πολλοὶ ἐπίσκοποι 
ἦσαν; Οὐδαμῶς" ἀλλὰ τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους οὕτως ἐκάλεσε" τότε γὰρ τέως 
ἐκοινώνουν τοῖς ὀνόμασι, καὶ διάκονος ὁ ἐπίσκοπος ἐλέγετο. Διὰ τοῦτο 
γράφων καὶ Τιμοϑέῳ ἔλεγε: τὴν διακονίαν σου πληροφόρησον, ἐπισκόπῳ ὄντι. 
ὄτι γάρ ἐπίσκοπος ἦν, φησὶ πρὰς αὐτὸν χεῖρας ταχέως μηδενὶ ἐπιτίϑει" καὶ 

΄ wo snes Su ue ΄ a ~ ~ ΄7 ᾽ x x 
πάλιν: 6 ἐδόϑη σοι μετὰ ἐπιϑέσεως TOV χειρῶν Tov πρεσβυτερίου" οὐκ ἂν δὲ 
πρεσβύτεροι ἐπίσκοπον ἐχειροτόνησαν. Καὶ πάλιν πρὸς Τίτον γράφων φησὶ" 
τούτου χάριν κατέλιπόν σε ἐν Kphrn, ἵνα καταστήσῃς κατὰ πόλιν πρεσβυτέ- 

wy ¢ 
ρους, ὡς ἐγώ σοι διεταξάμην" ei τις ἀνέγκλητος, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ: ἃ περὶ 
τοῶ-ἐπισκόπου φησί. Καὶ εἰπὼν ταῦτα εὐϑέως ἐπῆγαγε" δεῖ γὰρ τὸν ἐπίσ- 
κοπον ἀνέγκλητον εἶναι, ὡς Θεοῦ οἰκονόμον, μὴ αὐϑάδη. Ὅπερ οὖν ἔφην, 
i 


é 
καὶ οἱ πρεσϑύτεοοι τὸ παλαιὸν ἐκαλοῦντο ἐπίσκοποι Kal διάκονοι τοῦ Xpic- 


15 Ὁ 


72 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


In relation to the salutation of Paul to the Philippians, ec. 
i. 1, he says, “the apostle calls the presbyters bishops ; for 
they had at that time the same names, as we learn from the 
the history of the Acts of the Apostles (Acts xx. 17), so that 
it is evident that he denominates the presbyters, bishops.” © This 
sentiment he repeats in commenting on 2 Tim.” 

The commentary of a Greek scholiast, of a later date, 
Tov, Kal οἱ ἐπίσκοποι πρεσβύτεροι. ὅϑεν καὶ viv πολλοὶ συμπρεσβυτέρῳ 
ἐπίσκοποι γράφουσι, καὶ συνδιακόνῳ" λοιπὸν δὲ το ἱδιάζον ἑκάστῳ ἀπονενέ- 
μῆται ὄνομα, ὁ ἐπίσκοπος καὶ ὁ TpecBiTepoc.—Chrysostom, Ep. ad Phil. 
Vol. XI. p. 194. 

Διαλεγόμενος περὶ ἐπίσκοπον Kal χαρακτηρίσας αὐτοὺς, Kai εἰπὼν τίνα 
μὲν ἔχειν, τίνων δὲ ἀπέχεσϑαι χρὴ, καὶ τὸ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων τάγμα ἀφεὶς, 
εἰς τοὺς διακόνους μετεπήδησε, Ti δήποτε ; ὅτι οὐ πολὺ μέσον αὐτῶν καὶ 
τῶν ἐπισκόπων. Kai γὰρ καὶ αὐτοὶ διδασκαλίαν εἰσὶν ἀναδεδεγμένοι καὶ 
προστασίαν τῆς ἐκκλησίας" καὶ ἃ περὶ ἐπισκόπων εἶπε, ταῦτα καὶ πόεσβυτέ- 
ροις ἁρμόττει: τῇ γὰρ χειροτονίᾳ μονῃ ὑπερβεβήκασι καὶ τούτῳ μόνον 
δοκοῦσι πλεονεκτεῖν τοῦς πρεσβυτέρους .---Γδα., Ep. ad Tim. 1, Vol. ΧΙ. 
p. 604. 

86 Πᾶσι τὰ κατ᾽’ αὐτὸν ἐπιστέλλει, τοῖς δὲ τῆς ἱερωσύνης ἠξιωμένοις καὶ 
τοῖς ἀπό τούτων ποιμαινομένοις, ἁγίους γὰρ τοὺς τοῦ βαπτίσματος ἀξιωδέν- 
τας ὠνόμασεν, ἐπισκόπους δὲ τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους καλεῖ, ἀμφότερα γὰρ εἶχον 
κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνον τὸν καιρὸν τὰ ὀνόματα. Καὶ τοῦτο ἡμᾶς καὶ ἡ τῶν Πράξεων 
ἱστορία διδάσκει. Ἑϊρηκὼς γὰρ ὁ μακάριος Λουκᾶς, ὡς εἰς τὴν Μίλητον τοὺς 
᾿Εφεσίων μετεπέμψατο πρεσβυτέρους ὁ ϑεῖος ἀπόστολος, λέγει καὶ τὰ πρὸς 
αὐτοὺς εἰρημένα" προσέχετε γὰρ φησιν ἑαυτοῖς καὶ παντὶ ποιμνίῳ, ἐν ᾧ ὑμας 
ἔϑετο τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἐπισκόπους, ποιμαίνειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Xpto- 
οὔ" καὶ τοὺς αὐτοὺς καὶ πρεσβυτέρους καὶ ἐπισκόπους ὠνόμασεν. Οὕτω καὶ 


om τῇ 


ν τῇ πρὸς τὸν μακάριον Τίτον ἐπιστολῆ" διὰ τοῦτο κατέλιπόν σε Ev ἹΚρῆτῃ, 


να καταστήσῃς κατὰ πόλιν πρεσβυτέρους, ὡς ἐγώ σοι διεταξάμην. Καὶ 
εἰπὸν ὁποίους εἶναι χρὴ τοὺς χειροτονουμένους ἐπῆγαγε" δεῖ γὰρ τὸν ἐπίσκο- 
πον ἀνέγκλητον εἷναι, ὡς Θεοῦ οἰκονόμον. Καὶ ἐνταῦϑα δὲ δῆλον τοῦτο 
πεποίηκε" τοῖς γὰρ ἐπισκόποις τοὺς διακόνους συνέζευξε, τῶν πρεσβυτέρων 
οὗ ποιησάμενος μνήμην ἄλλως τε οὐδὲ οἷόν τε ἦν πολλοὺς ἐπισκόπους μίαν 
Ody ποιμαίνειν" ὡς εἶναι δῆλον ὅτι τοὺς μὲν πρεσβυτέρους ἐπισκο- 
πους ὠνόμασε.--- μοοάογοεί, Hp. ad Phil. p. 445, seq. Vol. III. -ed. 
Halens. 


87 TloAAd καὶ τούτου (Epaphroditus) κατορϑώματα διεξῆλϑεν (Paul- 


EQUALITY OF BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS. 175 


shows that these views were still retained in the Eastern 
church.* 

This scholiast has but hinted at the argument from these 
passages, to which he refers, but he has said enough to 
show that the doctrine of the ministerial parity of bishops 
and presbyters was still maintained during the middle ages, 
in the Eastern church, and justly defended on the authori- 
ty of the Scriptures. 

Elias, archbishop, of Crete, A .D. 787, asserts the identity 
of bishops and presbyters ; and, in commenting upon Gre- 
gory Nazianzen, remarks that this bishop, in the fifth cen- 
tury, was accustomed to denominate presbyters, bishops, 
making no distinction between them—a circumstance which 
this scholiast has noticed in many passages from Gregory.” 
us), οὐκ ἀδελφὸν μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ συνεργὸν καὶ συστρατιώτην ἀποκαλέσας. 
᾿Απόστολον δὲ αὐτὸν κέκληκεν αὐτῶν ὡς τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν αὐτῶν ἐμπεπιστευ- 
μένον" ὡς εἶναι δῆλον ὃτι ὑπὸ τοῦτον ἐτέλουν οἱ ἔν τῷ προοιμίῳ κληῦ ἔν- 
Tec ἐπίσκοποι, τοῦ πρεσβυτερίου δηλονότι τὴν τάξιν πλη- 
povvtec.—Ibid. Ep. ad Tim., p. 459, Vol. 111. 

᾿Επίσκοπον δὲ ἐνταῦϑα τὸν πρεσβύτερον λέγει, ὡς τὴν πρὸς 
Φιλιππησίους ἐπιστολὴν ἑρμηνεύοντες ἀπεδείξαμεν.---Ἴ bid. p. 652. 

88. ᾽᾿Επειδ λανϑάνει τοὺς πολλοὺς ἡ συνήϑεια, μάλιστα τῆς καινῆς δια- 
ϑῆκης, τοὺς ἐπισκόπους πρεσβυτέρους ὀνομάζουσα καὶ τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους 
ἐπισκόπους, σημειωτέον τοῦτου ἐντεῦϑεν καὶ ἐκ τῆς πρὸς Τίτον ἐπιστολῆς, ἔτι 
δὲ καὶ πρὸς Φιλιππησίους καὶ ἐκ τῆς πρὸς Τιμόϑεον πρώτης. ’EK μὲν οὖν τῶν 
Πράξεων ἐντεῦϑέν ἐστι πεισϑῆναι περὶ τούτου, γέγραπται γάρ οὕτως: ’EK 
δὲ τῆς Μιλήτου πέμψας εἰς "Ἑφεσον μετεκαλέσατο τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους τῆς 
ἐκκλησίας. Kai οὐκ εἴρηκε τοὺς ἑπισκόπους, εἶτα ἐπιφέρει" ἐν ᾧ ὑμᾶς τὸ 
πνεῖμα τὸ ἅγιον ἔϑετο ἐπισκόπους, ποιμαίνειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. ’EK δὲ τῆς 
πρὸς Τίτον ἐπιστολῆς. Καταστήσεις κατὰ πόλιν πρεσβυτέρους, ὡς ἐγώ σοι 
διεταξάμεν. ᾿Ἐκ δὲ τῆς πρὸς Φιλιππησίους: Τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Φιλίπποις συν- 
ἐπισκόποις καὶ διακόνοις, Οἶμαι dé, ὅτι ἐκ τῆς προτέρας πρὸς Τιμόϑενον 
ἀναλογισάμενος τοῦτο ἐκλαβεῖν' εἰ τις γάρ, φησι, τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς ὀρέγεται, 
καλοῦ ἔργου ἐπιϑυμεῖ" δεῖ οὖν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίληπτον eivat.—Cited by 
Rothe from Salmasius, Episcop. et Presb. p. 18. 


8 Greg. Naz., Vol. II. p. 830, Ed. Colon. 1590. Also Ed. Basil. 
1571, pp. 262, 264. 


110 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


Isidorus Hispalensis, bishop of Seville, in Spain, in the 
seventh century, and one of the most learned men of that 
age, copies with approbation the authority of Jerome given 
above, as an expression of his own sentiments. 

We subjoin the authority of Bernaldus Constantiensis, a 
learned monk of the eleventh century,” and of Pope Urban, 
his contemporary.” 

Gratian, a Benedictine, eminent for his learning and tal- 
ents, a century later ;*’ Nicholas Tudeschus, archbishop of 
Panorma, about A. D. 1428," and even the papal canonist, 
Jo. Paul Launcelot, A. D. 1570," all concur in the same 
sentiment. 


90 Quum igitur presbyteri et episcopi antiquitus, idem fuisse legan- 
tur etiam eandem ligandi atque solvendi potestatem, et alia nunc 
episcopis specialia, habuisse non dubitantur. Postquam autem pres- 
byteri ab episcopali excellentia cohibiti sunt, coepit eis non licere quod 
licuit, videlicet quo decclesiastica auctoritas solis pontificibus exequen- 
dum delegavit.—De Presbyterorum officio tract. in monumentorum res 
Allemannorum illustrant. §. Blas, 1792, 4to. Vol II. 384, seq. 

91 Sacros autem ordines ducimus diaconatum et presbyteratum. Hos 
siquidem solos primitiva legitur ecclesia habuisse; super his solum 
preceptum habemus apostoli.—Conc. Benevent, an. 1090, can. 1. 

% (Dist. XCV. c. 5), Epist. ad Evangel. (Dist. XCIII. c. 24), and 
Isidori His. (Dist. X XI. δ; 1). 

98 Super prima parte Primi, cap. 5, ed. Lugdun, 1549, fol. 1126. 
Olim presbyteri in commune regebant ecclesiam et ordinabant sacer- 
dotes. 

% Institut. juris Canon. Lib. 1, Tit. 21, ὁ 3. Comp. especially Peta- 
υἱὲ de ecclesiastica hierarchia Lib. 5, and dissertatt. theologic. Lib. 1, 
in his theolog. dogmat. Tom. 4, p. 164. On the other side, Walonis 
Messalini (Claud. Salmasii), diss. de episcopis et presbyteris. Lugd. 
Bat. 1641, 8vo. Dav. Blondelli apologia pro sententia Hieronymi de 
episcopis et presbyteris. Amstelod. i616, 4to. Against these, Henr. 
Hammondus dissertatt. IV. quibus episcopatus jura ex sacra scriptura 
et prima antiquitate adstruuntur. Lond. 1651. The controversy was 
long continued. On the side of the Episcopalians, Jo. Pearson, Guil. 
Beveridge, Henr. Dodwell, Jos. Bingham, Jac. Usserius. On that of 


EQUALITY OF BISHOPS AND PRESBYTERS. 177 


In view of the whole course of the argument, it appears 
that the episcopal claim of an original distinction between 
bishops and presbyters is a groundless assumption. The 
existence of such a distinction has been denied by prelates, 
bishops and learned controvertists and commentators, both 
in the Eastern and Western churches, of every age down 
to the sixteenth century. It was unknown to those early 
fathers who lived nearest to the apostolical age, and some 
of whom were the immediate successors of the apostles. It 
was wholly unauthorized by the apostles themselves. Must 
we believe that the presbyter is a mere subaltern of the 
bishop, to perform the humbler offices of the ministry and 
to supply the bishop’s lack of service? Must we believe, 
moreover, that the bishop, this honored and most important 
dignitary of the church, is a nameless nondescript, known 
by no title, represented by no person or class of persons in 
the apostolic churches, and having no distinct, specific 
duties prescribed in the New Testament? All this may be 
asserted and reaffirmed, as a thousand times it has been, 
but it can never be proved. Verily this vaunting of high 
church episcopacy is an insult to reason, a complacent as- 
sumption, which makes “implicit faith the highest demon- 
stration.” If any asserter of these absurd pretensions finds 
himself disquieted at any time by the renewed remonstrances 
of Scripture, truth and reason, to repel such impertinent 
intruders and restore the equilibrium of his mind, he has 
only to “shake his head and tell them how superior, after 
all, is faith to logic!” 


The ‘foregoing chapters exhibit an outline of that eccle- 


the Presbyterians, Jo. Dallaeus, Camp. Vitringa; also the Lutherans, 
Joach. Hildebrand, Just. Henn. Boehmer, Jo. Franc. Buddeus, Christ. 
Math. Pfaff, ete. Comp. Jo. Phil. Gabler de episcopis primae eccle- 
siae Christ. eorumque origine diss. Jenae, 1805, 4to, 


178 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


siastical organization which the churches received from the 
hands of the apostles, and which was continued in the prim- 
itive church for some time after the apostolic age. The 
government may not be strictly either congregational or 
presbyterian, but it involves the principles of both; it is 
altogether popular. The sovereign authority is vested in 
the people. From them all the laws originate; by them 
they are administered. Each community is an independent 
sovereignty, whose members are subject to no foreign eccle- 
siastical jurisdiction. Their confessions, formularies and 
terms of communion are formed according to their own 
interpretation of the laws of God; and if the deportment 
of any one is subject to impeachment, the case is decided 
by the impartial verdict of his brethren. Their officers are’ 
few; and their ministers, equal in rank and power, are the 
servants, not the lords of the people. The entire polity of 
the apostolic and primitive churches was framed on the 
principles, not of a monarchical hierarchy, but of a popular 
and elective government. It was a republican government 
administered with republican simplicity. 


CHAPTER. VII. 
APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 


Tue ministerial parity and identity of bishops and pres- 
byters, so far as indicated by their names in the New Testa- 
ment, are generally admitted, we believe, by Episcopalians 
' themselves. “The name [bishop] is there given to the middle 
order, or presbyters; and αἰ that we read in the New Tes- 
tament concerning ‘bishops’ (including, of course, the words 
‘overseers’ and ‘oversight,’ which have the same deriva- 
tion) is to be regarded as pertaining to that middle grade. 
It was after the apostolic age that the name ‘bishop’ was 
taken from the second order and appropriated to the first.” 
This admission of Bishop Onderdonk may be received as a 
fair expression of the views of the denomination. The office 
of bishop, then, either is not a divine, but a human institu- 
tion, established after the apostolic age, or it is an office, an 
institution, without a name in the Scriptures. It is an or- 
der, an office, on which not only the validity of all the ordi- 
nances of the church, but the very existence of the church, 
depends. Without a bishop there neither is nor can be any 
church, according to the episcopal theory. And yet this 
order, indispensable to the existence of the church, is never 
once named by the Great Head of this church nor by his 
apostles while going through the earth ordaining and 
setting in order the churches of every land! Nay, more ; 
this confusion is worse confounded by applying to this high 

179 


180 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


and sacred order all the names, offices and attributes of an 
inferior grade. Believe it who can, we cannot; we will 
not cast upon Holy Writ such an imputation as this con- 
fusion of words and orders involves. 

But with those whose faith staggers not under such de- 
mands upon its credulity, the controversy turns, not upon. 
the equality, the identity of bishops and presbyters, but upon 
the question whether the apostles themselves had a perma- 
nent or a temporary office and character—whether they had 
or could have successors to perpetuate their own peculiar, 
specific office in the church. ‘Their office is as definite and 
distinct as that of bishop, by the episcopal theory, is indefi- 
nite and indistinct. They were to be witnesses for Christ— 
witnesses of his ministry, his life, his death and his resur- 
rection. Peter declares this to have been the specific object 
of choosing Matthias—to be a witness with us of his resurrec- 
tion, Acts 1. 21, 22; comp. 11. 82; v. 32; x. 39-42. This 
was to be the test of Paul’s apostleship. Christ revealed 
himself to him “to be his witness unto all men,” Acts xxii. 
14,15; xxiii. 11; xxvi.16. “Am 1 not an apostle? Have 
I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?” 1 Cor. ix.1. The office 
of the apostles, by these limitations, ends with themselves. 
They can have no successors. See Neander, p. 20. 

As the first ministers of the church of Christ, the first to 
ordain ministers in all the churches, they have their suc- 
cessors in the Episcopal and in every duly-organized church 
of whatever denomination. There is an apostolical succes- 
sion in the Presbyterian as truly as in the Episcopal Church. 
But when they of this church claim that through their apos- 
tolical succession there is a mysterious “sacramental grace,” 
an invisible, imperceptible tertiwm quid, which alone gives 
validity to ordination and to every ordinance of the church, 
we may call for the proof thereof. The burden of proof 
lies upon them. What is this grace transmittcd through 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 181 


your apostolical succession? Who has seen or handled it 
or felt its presence? What are the evidences of its presence 
or tokens of its departure? It is a latent principle, for ever 
latent, inoperative, unknown. All else is known by its 
effects, the only means by which everything material or 
immaterial can be made known. Verily, to set up such 
claims for such grace, so mysterious, so incomprehensible, 
cognizable neither by sense, consciousness nor experience, 
is to put an end to all argument, to set at defiance all rea- 
son. We have no common ground, no first principles, nei- 
ther definition, axiom nor postulate, left for logical discus- 
sion." 

In the dark ages of disorder, degeneracy and corruption, 
has no graceless hypocrite crept in unawares, and, stealing 
the livery of succession from sinister motives, laid unholy 
hands upon the bishops whom he received to holy orders? 
If so, then this “golden chain of the succession,” of which 
we hear so much as connected with the personal min‘stry 
of Christ and fastened to the throne of God, becomes a rope 
of sand given to the winds. A slight error or informality 
vitiates the whole; but the chances are infinite that some 
fatal flaw or breach in the long chain of the succession may 
interrupt the line of this electrical grace; and the misfor- 
tune is, that it can never be known by any palpable signs 
whether or not the line has been broken; neither, if once 
broken, can it ever be repaired. But the historical fact is, 
that this chain has many a broken link, in bishops irregu- 
larly introduced into office, without consecration, by some 
caprice of the populace or the supremacy of inspired power. 
Ambrose, Martin of Tours, Chrysostom, Eraclius, are exam- 
ples to this effect, broken links in this golden chain, any 
one of which sunders for ever this connection with the 


' Comp. Edinburgh Reyv., April, 1843, pp. 269, 270. « 
10 


182 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


throne of God. Comp. pp. 65, 71. The irony of the British 
reviewer is but a fit expression of the absurdity of this 
delusion : 

“What bishop can be sure that he and his predecessors 
in the same line have always been duly consecrated? or 
what presbyter, that he was ordained by a bishop who had 
aright to ordain him? Who will undertake to trace up 
his spiritual pedigree unbroken to the very age of the apos- 


tles, or give us a complete catalogue of his spiritual an- 
cestry ?”’* 


How marvelous that men of acuteness and culture, eru- 


2 “ We can imagine the perplexity of a presbyter thus cast in doubt 
as to whether or not he has ever had the invaluable ‘ gift’ of apostoli- 
cal succession conferred upon him. As that ‘gift’ is neither tangible 
nor visible, the subject neither of experience nor consciousness ;—as it 
cannot be known by any ‘effects’ produced by it (for that mysterious 
efficacy which attends the administration of rites at its possessor’s 
hands, is, like the gift which qualifies him to administer them, also 
invisible and intangible), he may imagine, unhappy man! that he 
has been ‘regenerating’ infants by baptism, when he has been simply 
sprinkling them with water. ‘What is the matter? the spectator of 
his distractions might ask. ‘What have you lost?” ‘Lost! would 
be the reply; ‘I fear I have lost my apostolical succession ; or rather 
my misery is, that I do not know and cannot tell whether I ever had 
it to lose? It is of no use here to suggest the usual questions, ‘When 
did you see it Jast? When were you last conscious of possessing it? 
What a peculiar property is that, of which, though so invaluable— 
nay, on which the whole efficacy of the Christian ministry depends— 
aman has no positive evidence to show whether he ever had it or 
not! which, if ever conferred, was conferred without his knowledge ; 
and which, if it could be taken away, would still leave him ignorant, 
not only when, where and how the theft was committed, but whether 
it had ever been committed or not! The sympathizing friend might 
probably remind him that, as he was not sure he had ever had it, so, 
perhaps he still had it without knowing it. ‘Perhaps!’ he would re- 
ply; ‘but it is certainty I want.’ ‘Well,’ it might be said, ‘ Mr. Glad- 
stone a:sures you that, on the most moderate computation, your 


APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 183 


dition, integrity and piety, can deceive themselves with such 
a figment of fanaticism and prelatical pride which so out- 
rages all common sense and Christian charity! But there 
are men in that communion who, like Archbishop Whately, 
contemptuously discard this incomprehensible dogma. With 
his deliverances relating to it we dismiss the subject : 

“Now what is the degree of satisfactory assurance that 
is thus afforded to the scrupulous consciences of any mem- 
bers of an episcopal church? Ifa man consider it as highly 
probable that the particular minister at whose hands he re- 
ceives the sacred ordinances is really thus apostolically de- 
scended, this is the very utmost point to which he can, with 
any semblance of reason, attain; and the more he reflects 
and inquires, the more cause for hesitation he will find. 
There is not a minister in all Christendom who is able to 
trace up, with any approach to certainty, his own spiritual 
pedigree. ‘The sacramental virtue—for such it is that is im- 
plied, whether the term be used or not—in the principle I 
have been speaking of, dependent on the imposition of 
hands, with a due observance of apostolical usages by a 
bishop, himself duly consecrated, ... this sacramental vir- 
tue, if a single link of the chain be faulty, must, on the 
above principles, be utterly nullified ever after in respect 
of all the links that hang on that one; the poisonous taint 
of informality, if it once creep in undetected, will spread 
the infection of necessity to an indefinite and irremediable 
extent. 

“ And who can undertake to pronounce that, during that 
long period usually designated the Dark Ages, no such 
taint ever was introduced? Irregularities could not have 


chances are as eight thousand to one that you have it! ‘Pish! the 
distracted man would exclaim; ‘what does Mr. Gladstone know about 
the matter? And, truly, to that query we know not well what answer 
the friend could make.”— Edinburgh Rev., p. 271. 


184 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


been wholly excluded without a perpetual miracle; and 
that no such miraculous interference existed, we have even 
historical proof. . . . We read of bishops consecrated when 
mere children; of men officiating who barely knew their 
letters; of illiterate and profligate laymen and habitual 
drunkards admitted to holy orders; and, in short, of the 
prevalence of every kind of disorder and reckless νοός... 
of the decency which the apostle enjoins. 

“Tt is no wonder, therefore, that the advocates of this 
theory studiously disparage reasoning, deprecate all exer- 
cises of the mind in reflection, deny appeals to evidence, 
and lament that even the power of reading should be im- 
parted to the people. It is not without cause that they 
dread and lament ‘an age of too much light,’ and wish to 
‘involve religion in a solemn and awful gloom.’ It is not 
without cause that, having removed the Christian’s confi- 
dence from a rock to base it on sand, they forbid all prying 
curiosity to examine their foundation.”’® 

“ Successors in the apostolic office the apostles had none. As 
witnesses of the resurrection, as dispensers of miraculous gifts, 
as inspired oracles of divine revelation, THEY HAVE NO SUC- 
cressors. But as members, as ministers, as governors of 
Christian communities, their successors are the regularly ad- 
mitted members, the lawfully ordained ministers, the regular 
and recognized governors of a regularly subsisting Christian 
church.” * 


3 Kingdom of Christ Delineated, Essay II. 3 29. 
4 Essay 11, 2 40. 


ἘΠΕ ΤΊΣ VET. 
PRESBYTERIAN ORDINATION. 


PRESBYTERIANS, in common with Episcopalians and 
other denominations, have adopted from the Scriptures, 
and retained substantially, one form of ordination, by the 
laying on of hands. We are accordingly as truly in the 
line of ecclesiastical descent and apostolical succession as 
Episcopalians. The succession began undeniably with pres- 
bytertan elders ordained in every church, and, as has been 
shown above, continued in this line a hundred years through 
the age of the apostles and the apostolic fathers, Clement, 
Polycarp and Irenaeus. ‘When we appeal to that tradi- 
tion from the apostles, which is preserved in the church by 
the succession of the presbyters, they oppose this tradition,” 
We ought to obey the presbyters in the churches, those who 
have, as we have shown, their succession from the apostles, 
who, with the succession of the episcopate, have received, ac- 
cording to the good pleasure of the Father, the gift of 
truth. The passages from Irenaeus are given above. In 
other passages he speaks in similar terms of the succession 
of the episcopate, the presbyteriate and the episcopate being 
with him the same order. Let it be particularly noted, 
also, that the succession is only in persons, incumbents im 
office merely, without the least reference to any consecrating 
gift or grace transmitted through this apostolical succession. 

That the elders, ordained in the churches by Paul and 
the other apostles, did ordain others to assist and to suc- 

16 * 185 


180 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


ceed them, and these again, in like manner, there can be no 
doubt; but the right and the authority to ordain over any 
particular church they derived from that body itself, not from 
the apostles. The clergy are the authorized agents of the 
church, and act as such in ordaining the pastors whom 
such church or society may have chosen. ‘Their authority, 
therefore, is derived from the church. Their ministerial 
office depends on their having been duly ordained accord- 
ing to the rules and usages of the church as by them au- 
thorized, not upon any mysterious sacramental virtue, 
transmitted in succession from the apostles. This apos- 
tolical succession is of no account whatever in establishing 
the validity of any ordination. 

The assertion has a thousand times been made and a 
thousand times repeated that Timothy was bishop of the 
church at Ephesus, but the assertion has never been proved, 
neither can be. Neither is the nature of the particular 
office which he sustained at Ephesus the material point in 
the argument. But it is of the utmost importance in this 
connection to note that Timothy—if you please, Bishop 
Timothy—was inducted into the ministry by presbyterian 
ordination— by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.” 
This was the ordaining act. This is the only clear case of 
ordination recorded in the New Testament. And this was 
not episcopal, but presbyterian ordination. It establishes, 
therefore, beyond contradiction the validity of presbyterian 
ordination. Both for the apostolical succession of the 
presbyteriate and the validity of ordination by presbyterian 
ministers, we have clearer, higher, fuller authority than 
prelacy with all her proud pretensions can adduce for epis- 
copal ordination. 

We are not ignorant of the embarrassment which this 
presbyterian ordination of Timothy, their bishop, occasioned 
to episcopalians, nor of their efforts to evade the force of 


PRESBYTERIAN ORDINATION. 187 


this example, but we care not to renew the discussion in 
this place. They deny but can never disprove the fact 
that there stands recorded by the apostle one instance “ of 
presbyterian ordination, in the case of Timothy, and this 
should be allowed to settle the question. As there is no 
other undisputed case of ordination referred to in the New 
Testament, and as we may presume that on an occasion 
of the kind here referred to, everything essential to a valid 
ordination would be observed, it demonstrates that presby- 
ters had and have the right to ordain.” * 

In ministerial parity presbyters and bishops are converti- 
ble terms. Grant the equality and identity of the two, 
and you concede to presbyters the right to ordain. Allow 
them to ordain, and you admit their equality with bish- 
ops. This equality, established in the foregoing chapter, is 
acknowledged by episcopalians as undeniable in the apos- 
tolical churches. The apostles teach the validity of pres- 
byterian ordination. Their authority and usage establish 
no uniform mode of ordination ; they concede indirectly to 
presbyters this right, while not the least authority is given 
by them for exclusive ordination by bishops.” 

The seven deacons were inducted into their office by 
prayer and the laying on of hands. This may have been, 
and perhaps was, the usual mode of setting apart any one 
to a religious service. But was the imposition of hands 
exclusively ordination? It was a right familiar to the 
Jews; and denoted either a benediction, or the communication 
of miraculous gifts. Jacob, in blessing the sons of Joseph, 
laid his hands upon their heads. So Jesus took young 
children in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands 
upon them. So Paul and Barnabas were dismissed, to go 
on their missionary tour, with the blessing of the brethren at 

1 Barnes’ Apostolic Church, p. 228. 
2 Comp. Gerhardi, Loci Theolog. Vol. XIT. p. 169. 


188 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


Antioch, by the laying on of hands, Acts xiii. 8. What- 
ever may have been the specific office of the prophets and 
teachers at Antioch, they were not apostles. On the sup- 
position, therefore, that the laying on of hands was per- 
formed by them, no reason appears why the same might 
not be done with equal propriety by presbyters. But this 
was not an ordination of Paul and Barnabas; for they had 
long been engaged in ministerial duties; neither does it 
appear that Paul was ever formally ordained. 

The imposition of hands appears also in some instances 
to have occurred more than once, as is the case of Timothy, 
upon whom this rite was performed by the presbytery, 
1 Tim. iv. 14; and again, by the apostle Paul, 2 Tim. 1. 6.° 
This fact forbids the supposition that the laying on of hands 
was the solemnizing act in the rite of ordination, which, 
according to all ecclesiastical usage, cannot be repeated. 
In the passage, Acts xiv. 23, the phrase χειροτονήσαντες, ete., 
has been already shown to relate, with great probability, 
not to the consecration, but to the appointment of the elders 
in every church.* Comp. pp. 58-60. 


3 Rothe, Anfinge der Christ. Kirch. S. 161. 

4 “Where, it may be asked, resides the right, or power, and in what 
consists the importance, of ordination? It is not the source of minis- 
terial authority ; for that, as it has been endeavored to show, does not, 
and cannot, rest on human foundation. It does not admit to the pas- 
toral office; for even in the Episcopal Church, the title to office, which 
is an indispensable prerequisite, is derived from the nomination of 
the person who has the disposal of the case. It is not office, but 
official character, which episcopal ordination is supposed to convey, 
together with whatsoever the advocates of episcopacy may chose to 
understand by those solemn words used by the ordaining bishop (an 
application of them which nonconformists deem awfully inappropriate), 
‘ Receive the Holy Ghost.’ The Jewish ordination, on the contrary, 
although sometimes accompanied, when administered by the apostles, 
by the communication of miraculous gifts, was in itself no more than 


* 


PRESBYTERIAN ORDINATION. 189 


_ The rite of the imposition of hands was used by Christ, 
and with great propriety has been retained in the Christian 
church. But with the apostles it was the customary mode 
of imparting the χαρέσματα, the miraculous gifts of that age, 
So the converts at Samaria received the Holy Ghost, Acts 
viii. 17, and in like manner, when Paul had laid his hands 
upon the Ephesian converts, the Holy Ghost came upon 
them, and they spake with tongues and prophesied, Acts xix. 
6. In the same sense is to be understood the gift, χάρισμα, 
which was bestowed on Timothy by prophecy, with the lay- 
ing on of the hands of the presbytery, 1 Tim. iv. 14. The 
meaning simply is, that by the imposition of hands that 
peculiar spiritual gift denominated prophecy was imparted 


a significant form of benediction on admission to a specific appoint- 
ment. Of this nature were the offices connected with the synagogue, 
in contradistinction from those of the priesthood. When Paul and 
Barnabas were sent out from the church at Antioch, they submitted to 
the same impressive ceremony : not surely that either authority, or 
power of any kind, or miraculous qualifications, devolved upon the 
apostle and his illustrious companion by virtue of the imposition of 
presbyterian hands! What then is ordination? The answer is, a 
decent and becoming solemnity, adopted from the Jewish customs by the 
primitive church, significant of the separation of an individual to some 
specific appointment in the Christian ministry, and constituting both a 
recognition on the part of the officiating presbyters of the ministerial 
character of the person appointed, and a desirable sanction of the pro- 
ceedings of the church. It is, however, something more than a mere 
circumstance, the imposition of hands being designed to express that 
fervent benediction which accompanied the ceremony, and which con- 
stitutes the true spirit of the rite. To an occasion which, when the 
awful responsibility of the pastoral charge is adequately felt, imparts 
to the prayers and the affectionate aid of those who are fathers and 
brethren in the ministry a more especial value, the sign and solemn 
act of benediction must appear peculiarly appropriate. This venera- 
ble ceremony may also be regarded as a sort of bond of fellowship 
among the churches of Christ, a sign of unity, and an act of brother- 
hood.” —Conder’s Protestant Nonconformity, Vol. 1. p. 242. 


190 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


to Timothy.? Of the same import are 2 Tim. i. 6, and 
1 Tim. v. 22. Both relate to the communication of spirit- 
ual gifts. If the rite of ordination was implied and in- 
cluded in it, then the same act must be expressive both of 
this induction into office, and of the communication of 
spiritual gifts. This is Neander’s explanation of the trans- 
action. ‘The consecration to offices in the church was con- 
ducted in the following manner: After those persons to 
whom its performance belonged, had laid their hands on 
the head of the candidate—a symbolic action borrowed 
from the Jewish nanD—they besought the Lord that he 
would grant what this symbol denoted, the impartation of 
the gifts of his Spirit for carrying on the office thus under- 
taken in his name. If, as was presumed, the whole cere- 
mony corresponded to its intent, and the requisite disposition 
existed in those for whom it was performed, there was 
reason for considering the communication of the spiritual 
gifts necessary for the office, as connected with the conse- 
cration performed in the name of Christ. And since Paul 
from this point of view designated the whole of the solemn 
proceeding (without separating it into its various elements), 
by that which was its external symbol (as, in scriptural 
phraseology, a single act of a transaction consisting of 
several parts, and sometimes that which was most striking 
to the senses, is often mentioned for the whole), he required 
of Timothy that he should seek to revive afresh the spirit- 
ual gifts that he had received by the laying on of hands.” ® 

The question has been asked, but never yet answered, 
who ordained Apollos? See Acts xviii. 24-26; 1 Cor. ii. 
5-7. 

It remains to consider the case of Paul the Apostle. Of 
whom did he receive ordination? One Ananias, a disciple 


5 Rothe Anfiinge, I. S. 161. 
6 Neander, Apost. Kirch. 1, 218. Trans. I. 180. Comp. pp. 88, 300. 


PRESBYTERIAN ORDINATION. 191 


and a devout man according to the law, having a good re- 
port of all the Jews that dwelt at Damascus—this man 
prayed and laid his hands upon Paul, and straightway he 
preached Christ in the synagogue. Scon after this he spent 
three years in Arabia; then, for a whole year he and 
Barnabas assembled themselves with the church and taught 
much people at Antioch, Acts xi. 26. After all this, he was 
sent forth by the Holy Ghost on his mission to the Gentiles. 
Preparatory to this mission he was recommended to the 
grace of God by fasting, prayer and the imposition of hands. 
Even this was not done by any of the apostles, but by cer- 
tain prophets and teachers, such as Simeon, Lucius and 
Manaen. Even on the supposition, therefore, that these 
were the solemnities of Paul’s ordination, he was not. epis- 
copally ordained. But, in truth, they had no reference 
whatever to his ordination. On the authority of his divine 
commission he had already been a preacher for several 
years. It was not a new appointment, but an appointment 
to a new work, which in no degree helps forward the cause 
of prelatical ordination." 

We have adopted from apostolic usage a significant, im- 
pressive and becoming rite, by which to induct one into the 
sacred office of the ministry. The rite ought always to be 
observed. But no direct precept, no uniform usage, gives 
to this rite the sanction of divine authority; above all, there 
is not in all the Scriptures the least authority for confining 
the administration of it exclusively to the bishop. The idea 
of a bishop’s receiving the Holy Ghost in regular succession 
from the holy apostles, and transmitting the heavenly grace 
to others by the laying on of his hands, is a figment of pre- 
latical pride and superstition unauthorized in Scripture and 
unknown in the earliest ages of the church. In the apos- 


Τ᾿ Bowdler’s Letters on Apostolical Succession, p. 22. 


192 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


tolic age, ordination was performed by the laying on of the 
hands of the presbytery, not of the bishops. 

In the age immediately subsequent to that of the apos- 
tles, episcopal ordination was equally unknown, both bish- 
ops and presbyters being still the same. Clement knows 
no distinction betwéen bishops and presbyters. Polycarp 
knows nothing of bishops. Each specifies but two orders 
or grades of officers in the church, of which the deacons 
are one. Presbyters or bishops of necessity form the other 
order, and are one and the same. Justin Martyr, again, 
speaks of only two grades, of which deacons form one. Ire- 
naeus, still later, accords the apostolic succession to presby- 
ters, who, with the succession of the episcopate, have received 
the certain gift of truth according to the good pleasure of 
the Father.» Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian recog- 
nize no clear distinction between bishops and presbyters as 
different orders. 

We have, however, direct proof that presbyters, in the 
primitive church did themselves ordain. This is found in 
the epistle of Firmilian from Asia Minor to Cyprian in 
Carthage, A. D. 256. In explanation of the ecclesiastical 
polity of these churches, he says: “ All power and grace is 
vested in the church, where the presbyters, majores natu, pre- 
side, who have authority to baptize, to impose hands [in the 


”9  Firmilian wrote 


reconciling of penitents], and to ordain. 
in the Greek language from Asia; but we have a Latin 
translation of his epistle in the writings of Cyprian. No 


one who has any acquaintance with these languages can 


8 Qui successionem habent ab apostolis . . . qui cum episcopatus 
successione, charisma veritatis certum placitum Patris acceperunt.— 
Cont. Haer. IV. c. 26, @ ii. 4. 

9 Omnis potestas et gratia in ecclesia constituta sit; ubi praesident 
majores natu, qui et baptizandi, et manum imponendi, et ordinandi, 
possident, potestatem.—Cyprian, Epist. 75, 37, p. 148. 


PRESBYTERIAN ORDINATION. 193 


doubt that the majores natu of the Latin is a translation of 
πρεσβύτεροι in the original. Both the terms πρεσβύτεροι and 
majores natu mean the same thing; and each may, with 
equal propriety, be rendered aged men, elders, presbyters.” 
The episcopal hierarchy was not fully established in these 
Eastern churches so early as in the Western. Accordingly, 
we find the presbyters here in the full enjoyment still of 
their original right to ordain. No restrictions have yet 
been laid upon the presbyters in the administration of the 
ordinances. ‘Whatever clerical grace is essential for the 
right administration of baptism, of consecration and of or- 
dination is still retained by the presbyters. 
_ This authority is in perfect harmony with that of Irenaeus 
given above, that the succession and the episcopate had come 
down to his day, the latter part of the second century, 
through a series of presbyters, who, with the episcopate, 
enjoyed the rights and exercised the prerogatives of bish- 
ops, ordination being of course included. “This passage,” 
says Goode, “appears to me decisive as to Irenaeus’ view 
of the matter.” ᾿ 

To the foregoing testimonies succeeds that of the author 
of the Commentaries on St. Paul’s Epistles, attributed to 
Hilary the Deacon, A. D. 584. “The apostle calls Tim- 


10 Reeves, the translator of Justin, a churchman, who loses no op- 
portunity of opposing sectarians, allows, in his notes on the passage 
προεστώς, etc., that this προεστώς of Justin, the probati seniores of Ter- 
tullian, the majores natu of Firmilian, and the προεστῶτες πρεσβύτεροι 
or presiding presbyters of St. Paul, 1 Tim. iv. 17, were all one and the 
same. Now Tertullian, Cyprian, or Firmilian, the celebrated bishop 
of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and St. Paul, all mean presbyters. Their 
language cannot be otherwise interpreted without violence. Presbyter, 
says Bishop Jewell, is expounded in Latin by major natu.—Smyth’s 
Presbyt. and Prelacy, p. 367. 

11 Goode’s Divine Rule, Vol. II. p. 66. 

17 i 


194 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


othy, created by him a presbyter,’ a bishop (for the first 
presbyters were called bishops), that when he departed, the 
one that came neat might succeed him.” 

A presbyter, it is to be observed, becomes the successor 
of the apostle; and the apostolical succession comes down 
through him, as through a bishop, plainly establishing the 
validity of presbyterian ordination. “Every bishop is a 
presbyter, but not every presbyter a bishop. For he is 
bishop who ws chief among the presbyters. Moreover, he no- 
tices that Timothy was ordained a presbyter, but nasmuch 
as he had no other above him, he was a bishop.” Hence he 
shows that Timothy, a presbyter, might ordain a bishop, be- 
cause of his equality with him. ‘“ For it was neither lawful 


12 “Timothy is here said, we may observe, to have been ordained a 
presbyter. And 1 cannot but think that the passage, 1 Tim. iv. 14, is 
favorable to this view. For without adopting the translation which 
some have given of this passage, viz., ‘with the laying on of hands for 
the office of a presbyter,’ if we retain our own version, which appears 
to me more natural, who or what is ‘the presbytery? Certainly not 
consisting altogether of the apostles, though it appears, from 2 Tim. 
i. 6, that ordination was received by Timothy partly from St. Paul. 
But if presbyters joined in that ordination, it could not be to a higher 
sacerdotal grade or order than that of the presbyterhood. Nor is this 
inconsistent with his being called elsewhere an apostle, which name 
might be given him as one appointed to be a superintendent of a 
ehureh.”— Divine Rule, Vol. 11. p. 64. 

Timotheum, presbyterum a se creatum, episcopum yocat, quia primi 
presbyteri episcopi appellabantur, ut recedente uno sequens ei succe- 
deret. Comment. in Eph. iv. 11, 12. Inter Op. Ambros., ed. Ben., 
Vol. IL. app. col. 241, 242. The “ Council” may be what Tertullian 
calls “ consessus ordinis.” 

The author of the “ Questiones in Vet. et Nov. Test.,” which have 
been ascribed to Augustine, but are probably not his, says: “In Alex- 
andria, and through the whole of Egypt, if there is no bishop, a pres- 
byter consecrates.” (In Alexandria et per totam /%gyptum si desit 
episcopus consecrat presbyter.) Where, however, one MS. reads, con- 
firms (consignat). See Aug. Op., Vol. III. app., col. 77. On this 


PRESBYTERIAN ORDINATION. 195 


nor right for an inferior to ordain a superior, inasmuch as 
one cannot confer what he has not received.” * 

There is another passage in striking coincidence with the 
foregoing, probably from the same author, though found in 
an appendix to the works of Augustine: “That by presby- 
ter is meant a bishop the Apostle Paul proves when he in- 
structs Timothy, whom he had ordained a presbyter, respect- 
ing the character of one whom he would make a bishop. 
For what else is the bishop than the first presbyter, that is, 
the highest priest? For he [the bishop] calls them [the 
presbyters] by no other names than fellow-presbyters and 
fellow-priests. He therefore considers them of the same 
grade as himself.” But he is careful by no means to do 
the same with regard to clerical persons of inferior rank. 
Not even with the deacons, for to place himself in the same 
category with them would be degrading his own rank. 


subject, the 13th canon of the Council of Ancyra (in the code of the 
Universal Church) is also worth notice.—Divine Rule, ibid. 

There are also indirect confirmatory proofs. Such, I think, is 
afforded by the account we have in Eusebius (vi. 29) of the appoint- 
ment of Fabianus to the bishopric of Rome, for the assembly that met 
to elect a bishop having fixed upon him, placed him at once on the epis- 
copal throne (᾿ Αμελλήτως ἐπὶ τοῦ Updvov τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς λαβόντας αὐτὸν 
ἐπεϑεἴναι), which seems to me irreconcilable with the notion that epis- 
copal consecration was essential to entitle him to the episcopal seat ; 
for he was installed in it without any such consecration. 

13 Post Episcopum tamen Diaconi ordinationem subjicit. Quare? 
nisi quia Episcopi et Presbyteri una ordinatio est? Uterque enim 
sacerdos est, sed Episcopus primus est; ut omnis Episcopus Presbyter 
sit, non omnis Presbyter Episcopus; hic enim Episcopus est, qui inter 
Presbyteros primus est. Denique Timotheum Presbyterum ordinatum 
significat; sed quia ante se alterum non habebat, Episcopus erat. 
Unde et quemadmodum Episcopum ordinet ostendit. Neque enim 
fas erat aut licebat, ut inferior ordinaret majorem; nemo enim tribnit 
quod non accepit.—Comment. in 1 Tim. iii. 8, inter Ambros. Op. Vol. 
11. app. 298. 


196 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


“ Does the bishop call the deacons his fellow-deacons? Cer- 
tainly not; because they are far inferior to him, and it were 
a disgrace to call the yudge a mere manager of a clerk’s office.” 
If any are disposed to call in question this interpretation of 
the phrase judicem dicere primicerium, I will only say that 
it was given to me by Prof. Rothe of Heidelberg, with whose 
name the reader has become familiar by frequent references 
to his learned work on the Origin of the Christian Church. 
The following is also his exposition of the passage: “ Where 
there is a real difference of office and rank, the higher officer 
cannot include himself in the official designation of the lower 
without degrading himself. It would be a downright insult 
to address the president of a court as the head of his clerks. 
Just so it does not enter the mind of the bishop to call his 
deacons fellow-deacons, making himself thereby a deacon. 
Between these two officers there exists an actual difference 
in rank. On the other hand, he calls the presbyters his 
fellow-presbyters, because he sees no real difference between 
his office and theirs, but only a difference in degree; that 
is, he considers himself, in relation to the presbyters, as only 
primus inter pares, chief among equals. The offices of bishop 
and presbyter, therefore, are essentially one and the same; 
the very thing which Ambrosiaster wishes to prove. ‘ For 
in Alexandria and throughout all Egypt, upon the decease 
of the bishop, the presbyter confirms (consignat).’” "ἢ 

Here the presbyter performs another of the episcopal 


14 Presbyterum autem intelligi Episcopum probat Paulus Apostolus, 
quando Timotheum, quem ordinavit Presbyterum instruit, qualem 
debeat creare Episcopum. Quid est enim Episcopus nisi primus Pres- 
byter, hoc est summus sacerdos? Denique non aliter quam Compres- 
byteros, Condiaconos suos dicit Episcopus? Non utique, quia multo 
inferiores sunt, et turpe est, judicem dicere primicerium.— Augustin. 
Op. Vol. IIL. app. p. 77. Quaestiones in Veteris et Nov. Test. ex utro- 
qua mixtim, ed. Bened. Antwerp, 1700-1703. 


PRESBYTERIAN ORDINATION. 197 


functions, administering the rite, not only of ordination, 
but of confirmation.” 

The full sacerdotal power is possessed by every presbyter, 
according to the authority of the earliest fathers. They 
know no distinction between bishops and presbyters. The 
right to ordain still belongs to him; and the bishop, when 
selected to preside over his -fellow-presbyters, receives no 
new consecration or ordination, but continues himself to 
ordain as a presbyter. Within the first hundred and fifty 
years of the Christian era not an instance occurs of exclu- 
sive ordination by a bishop. 

We have next the authority of Jerome, who died A. D. 
496. He was one of the most learned of the Latin fathers. 
Erasmus styles him “ by far the most learned and most elo- 
quent of all the Christians, and the prince of Christian 
divines.” Jerome received his education at Rome, and was 
familiar with the Roman, Greek and Hebrew languages. 
He visited Egypt, and traveied extensively in France and 
the adjacent countries. He resided, in the course of his 
life, at Constantinople, at Antioch, at Jerusalem, and at 
Bethlehem. By his great learning, and his extensive ac- 
quaintance with all that related to the doctrines and usages 
both of the Eastern and of the Western churches, he was 
eminently qualified to explain the rights and prerogatives 
of the priesthood. 

“What does a bishop, ordination excepted, that a pres- 


15. Whether the verb consignare expresses the confirmation of the 
baptized, or the imposition of hands upon those who were ordained, 
or on penitents, the work expressed by it was correctly accomplished 
by presbyters, in the absence of the bishop, whose precedence was 
founded only on custom and the canons of the church. But these 
could not have legalized such acts of the presbyter had not his author- 
ity been apostolical. He was therefore duly authorized to perform 
the functions of the episcopal office. 

17 * 


198 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH.. 


byter may not do? This, however, is said of the relations 
of bishop and presbyter as they then were. This restriction 
of the right of ordaining to the bishops alone was a recent 
innovation, which had begun to distinguish them from the 
presbyters, and to subvert the original organization of the 
church. But it was an acknowledged fact, in his day, that 
the bishops had no authority from Christ or his apostles 
for their unwarrantable assumptions. ‘As the presbyters 
know that it is by the custom of the church that they are 
subject to him who is placed over them, so let the bishops 
know that they are above presbyters rather by the custom 
of the church than by the fact of our Lord’s appointment, 
and that they (both bishops and presbyters) ought to rule 
the church in common, in imitation of the example of 
Moses.”’" 

He reviews the same subject with great point in his 
famous epistle to Evagrius, or, more properly in modern 
editions, to Evangelus. He rebukes with great severity 
certain persons who had preferred deacons in honor “above 
presbyters, 1. e., bishops.” Having thus asserted the identity 
of bishops and presbyters, he proves his position from Phil. 
i. 1s from Acts xx. 17, 28; from Titus 1. 5; from a aime 
iv. 14; from 1 Pet. v. 1; -from 2 Johni.1; and from 
3 John i. 1. 

“As to the fact that AFTERWARD one was ELECTED to 
preside over the rest, this was done as a remedy against 
schism; lest every one drawing his proselytes to himself 


16 Quid enim facit, excepta ordinatione, Episcopus, quod presbyter 
non faciat ?—Ep. ad Evang. Ep. 101 alias 85. Op. Ed. Paris, 1693- 
1706, p. 803. The same sentiment is expressed by Chrysostom: Τὴν 
χειροτονίαν. μόνην πρεσβυτέρους ἀναβαίνειν; only in ordaining do bishops 
excel presbyters. 

17 Comment. in Epist. ad. Titus, c. 1, v.5. Op. Vol. [V. Paris, 
1693-1706, p. 413. See Rheinwald, 25. 


PRESBYTERIAN ORDINATION. 199 


should rend the church of Christ. It had been the custom 
in the church at Alexandria, from the evangelist Mark to 
the bishops Heraclas and Dionysius, for the presbyters to 
choose one of their own number, make him president and 
eall him bishop; in the same manner as if an army should 
MAKE an emperor; or the deacons should choose from 
among themselves one whom they knew to be particularly 
active, and should call him arcH-DEACON. For, excepting 
ordination, what is done by a bishop which may not be 
done by a* presbyter?” 

Here the presbyters themselves elect one of their number 
and make him a bishop, so that even the bishop is ordained 
by the presbyters, if indeed it can be called an ordination ; 
if not, then he is only a presbyter still, having no other 
right to ordain than they themselves have. Such, Jerome 
assures us, 15 the usage “in every country.” There was but 
one ordination for bishops and presbyters in his time, 
though bishops had now begun exclusively to administer it. 
But it had been the custom of the church, from the begin- 
ning, for bishops and presbyters to receive the same ordina- 
tion. This is another consideration of much importance, to 


18 Sicut ergo Presbyteri sciunt, se ex Ecclesiae consuetudine ei, qui 
sibi praepositus fuerit, esse subjectos, ita Episcopi noverint, se magis 
consuetudine quam dispositionis Dominicae veritate Presbyteris esse 
majores, et in commune debere Ecclesiam regere. . . . . Audio quen- 
dam in tantam erupisse vecordiam, ut Diaconos Presbyteris, id est 
Episcopis, anteferret. Quod autem postea unus electus est, qui ceteris 
praeponeretur, in schismatis remedium factum est, ne unusquisque ad 
se trahens Christi Ecclesiam rumperet. Nam Alexandriae a Marco 
Evangelista usque ad Heraclam et Dionysium Episcopos, Presbyteri 
semper unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collocatum Episcopum 
nominabant, quomodo si exercitus Imperatorem faciat, aut Diaconi 
eligant de se quem industrium noverint et Archidiaconum vocent. 
Quid enim facit excepta ordinatione Episcopus, quod Presbyter non 
faciat? Comment. in Epist. ad Tit.—EKp. ad Kvang. 101, p. 803. 


200 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


show that presbyters were entitled to ordain. Having 
themselves received episcopal ordination as truly as the 
bishops, they were equally qualified to administer the same. 

That the right of ordination belonged to presbyters is 
evident from the authority of Eutychius of Alexandria, the 
most distinguished writer among the Arabian Christians of 
the tenth century. 

“Tam quite aware that very considerable learning has 
been employed in the attempt to explain away this passage, 
and the reader who wishes to see how a plain ‘statement 
may thus be darkened, may refer to the works mentioned 
below.” * 

Gieseler remarks that “it is at least certain that the part 
which is contradictory to the usage of later times has not 
been interpolated ; and so far it has an historical value.” ” 


19 The following is Selden’s translation of the passage from the 
Arabic: “Constituit item Marcus Evangelista duodecim Presbyteros 
cum Hanania, qui nempe manerent cum Patriarcha, adeo ut cum 
vacaret Patriarchates, eligerent unum e duodecim Presbyteris cujus 
capiti reliqui undecim manus imponerent eumque benedicerent et 
Patriarcham eum crearent, et dein virum aliquem insignem eligerent 
eumque Presbyterum secum constituerent loco ejus qui sic factus est 
Patriarcha, ut ita semper extarent duodecim. Neque desiit Alexan- 
driae institutum hoc de Presbyteris, ut scilicet Patriarchas crearent ex 
Presbyteris duodecim, usque ad tempora Alexandri Patriarchae Alex- 
andrini qui fuit ex numero illo ccexviiil. Is autem vetuit ne deinceps 
Patriarcham Presbyteri crearent. Et decrevit ut mortuo Patriarcha 
conyenirent Episcopi qui Patriarcham ordinarent. Decrevit item ut, 
vacante Patriarchatu, eligerent sive ex quacunque regione, sive ex 
duodecim illis Presbyteris, sive aliis, ut res ferebat, virum aliquem 
eximium, eumque Patriarcham crearent. Atque ita evanuit institu- 
tum illud antiquius, quo creari solitus a Presbyteris Patriarcha, et 
successit in locum ejus decretum de Patriarcha ab Episcopis creando.” 
—Eutch. Γαΐ». Alex. Ecclesiae suae orig. Ed. J. Selden. London, 
1642. 4to., pp. 29-31. Comp. Abr. Echell. Eutychius Vindicatus, 
Morinus De Ordinat Renaudot. Hist. Patriarch Alex. 

2° Cited in the author’s Christian Antiquities, p. 103. In addition 


PRESBYTERIAN ORDINATION. 201 


The right of presbyters to ordain, and the validity of 
presbyterian ordination, was never. called in question, ac- 
cording to Planck, until the bishops began, about the mid- 
dle of the third century, to assert the doctrine of the apos- 
tolical succession. “ With the name it seemed desirable 
also to inherit the authority of the apostles. For this pur- 
pose they availed themselves of the right of ordination. 
The right of ordination of course devolved exclusively upon 
the bishops as alone competent rightly to administer it. 
As they had been duly constituted the successors of the 
apostles, so also had they alone the right to communicate 
the same in part or fully by the imposition of hands. 
From this time onward, to give the rite more effect, it was 
administered with more imposing solemnity.” And in all 
probability it became customary at this early period to 
utter, in the laying on of hands, those words of prelatical 
arrogance and shocking irreverence, “ Receive the Holy 
Ghost” for the office and work of a bishop.” 

Dr. Neander has assured the writer, in conversation on 
this point, that beyond a doubt presbyters were accustomed 
to ordain in the ages immediately succeeding the apostles. 
The testimony of Firmilian, given above, is, according to 
Neander, explicit in confirmation of this fact, and the same 
sentiments are also expressed or implied in his works. If 
further evidence is needed on this point, it is given at length 
and with great ability by Blondell, who, after occupying 
one hundred quarto pages with the argument, sums up the 
result of the discussion in the following syllogism : 

“To whom the usage of the church has assigned in reality 
the same functions, to them it has also from the beginning 


to the authors mentioned above by Goode, are Le Quien and Petavius. 
Comp. also Neander, Allgem. Gesch. I. S. 325, 326, 2d edit., Note. 
J. F. Rehkopf, Vitae Patriarcharum Alexandr. fase. I. and II. 
#1 Planck, Gesell. Verfass. I. S. 158-161. 
ἡ fae 


202 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


ascribed the same ministerial parity, and, of course, the 
same dignity. 

“But the usage of the church has assigned to Ἔτει, and 
presbyters, in reality, the same functions in the right of 
confirmation, of dedication of churches, of taking the veil, 
of the reconciling of penitents, and in the ordination of 
presbyters, deacons, ete. 

“'Therefore it has from the beginning declared that bish- 
ops and presbyters are in all respects equal, and, of neces- 
sity, that they are the same in dignity or rank.” ” 

Even the decrees of ecclesiastical councils, which restrict 
the right of ordination to the bishops alone, distinctly imply 
that from the beginning it was not so limited. Why deny 
to presbyters the right to ordain, by a formal decree, if they 
had never enjoyed that right? The prohibition is an evi- 
dent restriction of their early prerogatives. 

But we forbear; enough has been said to vindicate the 
right of presbyters to ordain and to perform all the fune- 
tions of the ministerial office. How extraordinary the har- 
dihood with which, in the face of authorities a thousand 
times collated and repeated, we are still told that “the idea 
of ordination by any but bishops was an unheard-of thing 
in the primitive church!” ἢ 

“Such is the result of the appeal to the early fathers. 
They are so far from giving even a semblance of support 
to the episcopal claim, that, like the Scriptures, they every- 
where speak a language wholly inconsistent with it, and 
favorable only to the doctrine of ministerial parity. What, 


22 Apologia pro sententia Hieronomi de Episcopis et presbyteris. 
Amstelod. 1616, 4to. 

23 “So much for the idea of any but bishops ordaining in the prim- 
itive church. Never was this allowed before the Reformation, either 
in the church or by any sect, however wild !’—Review of Coleman’s 
Christian Antiquities, by H. W. D., a presbyter in Philadelphia. 


PRESBYTERIAN ORDINATION. 203 


then, shall we say of the assertions so often and so confi- 
dently made, that the doctrine of a superior order of bishops 
has been maintained in the church ‘from the earliest ages,’ 
in ‘the ages immediately succeeding the apostles,’ and ‘ by 
all the fathers from the beginning? What shall we say 
of the assertion that the Scriptures, interpreted by the writ- 
ings of the early fathers, decidedly support the same doc- 
trine Ὁ ** 


We have even high episcopal authority for presbyterian 
ordination. Repugnant as is this view of ordination to the 
modern advocates of episcopacy, it accords with the senti- 
ments of Archbishop Cranmer and the first Protestant bish- 
ops of the Church of England.” 

A volume might be filled with authorities from the Eng- 
lish church alone, in which both her most distinguished 
prelates and her most eminent scholars concede to presby- 
ters a virtual equality with bishops and the right to ordain. 

The Necessary Erudition of a Christian Man, drawn up 
with great care, approved by both houses of Parliament in 
1543, and prefaced by an epistle from the king himself, de- 
clares that “priests [presbyters] and bishops are, by God’s 
law, one and the same, and that the powers of ordination 
and excommunication belong equally to both.’ Under 

4 Miller’s Letters, pp. 108, 109. 

See transcript of the original, which was subscribed with Cran- 
mer’s own hand, in Bishop Stillingfleet’s Irenicum, Part II. c. 8, 2 2. 
See also Burnet’s History of the Reformation, P. I. pp. 318, 321. Cited 
from Conder’s Nonconformity. Many other authorities from English 
writers are given in 5. Mather’s Apology for the Liberty of the 
Churches, chap. 2, p. 51. They have also been collected and collated 
with great industry and research by Rey. Dr. Smyth, in his A postoli- 
cal Succession and his Presbytery not Prelacy. So also in an article 
in the Christian Spectator, New Series, Vol. II. p. 720, from whence 
several of the authorities given below are taken. 


204 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


Elizabeth it was enacted by Parliament “that the ordina- 
tion of foreign churches should be held valid.” 

The learned Whittaker, of Cambridge, declares the doc- 
trine of the Reformers to be that “ presbyters, being by di- 
vine right the same as bishops, they might warrantably set 
other presbyters over the churches.” 

Archbishop Usher, one of the brightest ornaments of the 
Episcopal Church, on being asked by Charles I., in the Isle 
of Wight, whether he found in antiquity that “ presbyters 
alone did ordain?” answered, “ Yes,” and that he would 
show his Majesty more—“ even where presbyters alone suc- 
cessively ordained bishops ;’ and he brought as an instance 
of this, the presbyters of Alexandria choosing and making 
their own bishop from the days of Mark till Heraclas and 
Dionysius. 

Bishop Stillingfleet says: “It is acknowledged by the 
stoutest champions of episcopacy, before these late unhappy 
divisions, that ordination performed by presbyters in case 
of necessity is valid.” 

Bishop Forbes: “ Presbyters have by divine right the 
power of ordaining as well as of preaching and baptizing.” 

Sir Peter King, Lord Chancellor of England, after assert- 
ing the equality of bishops and presbyters, and showing at 
length that the latter had full authority to administer the 
ordinances, adds: “ As for ordination, I find clearer proofs 
of presbyters ordaining than of their administering the 
Lord’s Supper.” 

The doctrine of the divine right of bishops, from which 
that of the exclusive validity of their ordination proceeds, 
was promulgated in a sermon preached January 12, 1588, 
by Dr. Bancroft, at St. Paul’s Cross, in the presence of a 
vast assembly of members of Parliament, the nobility and 
the court. He maintained that bishops are a distinct order 
from priests or presbyters, and have authority over them 


PRESBYTERIAN ORDINATION. 205 


jure divino, and directly from God. This bold and novel 
assertion created a great sensation throughout the kingdom. 
It was a vast extension of the prerogatives of the bishops, 
by which the oppression of the Puritans was increased to 
an incalculable degree. ‘The greater part even of the pre- 
latic party themselves were startled by the novelty of the 
doctrine; for none of the English Reformers had ever re- 
garded the bishops as anything else but a human institu- 
tion, appointed for the more orderly government of the 
church, and they were not prepared at once to condemn as 
heretical all churches where that institution did not exist. 
Whitgift himself, that furious, intolerant zealot, perceiving 
the use which might be made of such a tenet, said that the 
doctor’s sermon had done much good—though, for his own 
part, he rather wished than believed it to be true.” ”. The 
doctrine was reaffirmed half a century later by Laud and 
his party,” and from that time has been the favorite dogma 
of many in the Episcopal Church. | 

Even at the present time the validity of Presbyterian or- 
dination is acknowledged by many in the Episcopal Church. 

Goode, who has written with great ability against the 
Tractarians, says: “I admit that for the latter point [or- 
dination by bishops alone, as successors of the apostles], 
there is not any Scripture proof; but we shall find here, as 
in other cases, that as the proof is not to be found in Scrip- 
ture, so antiquity also is divided with respect to it; and 
moreover, that though it is the doctrine of our church, yet 
that it is held by her with an allowance for those who may 
differ from her on that point, and not as if the observance 
of it was requisite by divine command, and essential to the 
validity of all ordinations; though for the preservation of 
the full ecclesiastical regularity of her own orders, she has 

26 Hetherington’s History of Westminster Assembly, pp. 49, 50. 


27 Hallam’s Constitutional History, Vol. II. pp. 440, 441. 
18 


206 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


made it essential to the ministers of her own communion.” ὃ 
In support of this opinion he proceeds to enumerate many 
of the authorities of the fathers given above. 

Finally, we add the following extract, not again from an 
“irreverent dissenter ”’—to use the flippant cant of one of 
the Tractarians—but from a devotéd son of their own 
church, a distinguished layman of England, who has writ- 
ten with great ability and good effect against the doctrines 
of Puseyism and the high-church party. 

“Tt is no part of my plan to trace the origin or course of 
departure from the system of church government in the 
apostolical times, as it lies before us in all its simplicity. I 
admit—aindeed, as the lawyers say, it is a part of my case— 
that some change was unavoidable; and I see nothing in 
the present constitution of the church of England that is 
inconsistent with the principles of the apostles. But to say 
that they are identical, is a mere abuse of words. Still 
less is it to be heard say without some impatience, that 
there is safety in her communion only, as she has descended 
from the apostles, through all the changes and abominations 
that have intervened.” 

If, then, all this be so, there seems to be an end to the 
question ; for, under whatever circumstances the privilege 
of ordaining was afterward committed to the bishop, he 
could of necessity receive no more than it was in their 
power to bestow from whom he received it, who were co- 
ordinate presbyters, not superiors. At whatever period, 
therefore, it was adopted, and with whatever uniformity it 
might be continued, and whatever of value or even au- 
thority it might hence acquire, still as an apostolical insti- 
tution it has none; there is a gap which never can be 
filled, or rather, the lnk by which the whole must be sus- 


28 Divine Rule, Vol. II. pp. 57, 58. 


REMARKS. 207 


pended is wanting and can never be supplied. There can 
be no apostolical succession of that which had no apostolical 
existence; whereas, the averment, to be of any avail, must 
be, not only that it existed in the time of the apostles, but 
was so appointed by them as that there can be no true 
ehurch without it.” 

“T am aware that in St. Jerome’s time there existed 
generally, though by no means universally, this difference 
between the bishop and the presbyters, viz., that to the 
former was then confided the power of ordination. It may 
be difficult to fix the period exactly when the episcopate 
was first recognized as a distinct order in the church, and 
when the consecration of bishops, as such, came into general 
use. Clearly not, I think, when St. Jerome wrote. Thus 
much at least is certain, that the government of each church, 
including the ordination of the ministry, was at first in the 
hands of the presbytery.” ἢ 

The change was gradual, paulatim. “Power always 
passes slowly and silently, and without much notice, from 
the hands of the many to the few; and all history shows that 
ecclesiastical domination grows up by little and little.” 
Comp. p. 171, note. 


REMARKS. 


1. The primitive church was organized as a purely reli- 
gious society. 

It had for its object the promotion of the great interests 
of morality and religion. It interfered not with the secular 
or private pursuits of its members, except so far as they re- 
lated to the great end for which the church was formed— 
the promotion of pure and undefiled religion. 


29 Bowdler’s Letters, pp. 32, 33. . 
30 Dr. Hawks, in Smyth’s Eccl. Republicanism, p. 166. 


208 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


2. It employed only moral means for the accomplishment 
of religious ends. 

The apostles sought, by kind and tender entreaty, to re- 
claim the wandering. They taught the church to do the 
same, and to separate the unworthy from their communion. 
But they gave no countenance to the exercise of arbitrary 
authority. 

3. The apostolical churches had no relations to any civil 
government. 

But the church soon began to be assimilated to the form 
of the existing civil governments, and in the end a “hier- 
archy of bishops, metropolitans and patriarchs arose, cor- 
responding to the graduated rank of the civil administration. 
Ere long the Roman bishop assumed pre-eminence above 
all others.” ** United with the civil authority in its inter- 
ests, assimilated to that power in its form of government, 
and secularized in its spirit, the church, under Constantine 
and his successors, put off its high and sacred character, 
and became a part of the machinery of state government. 
It first truckled to the low arts of state policy, and after- 
ward, with insatiable ambition, assumed the supreme control 
of all power, human and divine. 

4. The primitive church was fitted to any form of civil 
government, and to any state of society. 

Voluntary and simple in their organization, entirely re- 
moved from all connection with the civil government, with 
no confederate relations among themselves, and seeking only 
by the pure precepts of religion to persuade men in every 
condition to lead quiet and holy lives, these Christian socie- 
ties were adapted to any state of society and any form of 
government. They commended themselves with equal fa- 
cility to the rich and the poor, the learned and the un- 


31 Ranke’s Hist. of the Popes, Eng. Trans., Vol. I. p. 29. 


REMARKS. 209 


learned, the high and the low, to the soldier, the fisherman 
or the peasant. They gathered into their communion con- 
verts from every form of government, of every species of 
superstition, and of every condition in life, and by whole- 
some truths and simple rites trained them up for eternal life. 

5. It subjected the clergy to salutary restraints by bring- 
ing them, in their official character, under the watch of the 
church. 

The consciousness that their whole life was open to the 
judicial inspection of those to whom they ministered, and 
by whom they were most intimately known, could not fail 
to create in the clergy a salutary circumspection, the re- 
straints of which an independent ministry under another 
system can never feel. 

6. It served to guard them against the workings of an 
unholy ambition, a thirst for office and the love of power. 

This thought is necessarily implied in the preceding, but 
it is of such importance that it deserves a distinct consider- 
ation. Those disgraceful contests for preferment, the recital 
of which crowds the page of history, belong to a later age 
and a different ecclesiastical polity, a prelatical organization. 

7. It tended to guard the clergy against a mercenary 
spirit. 

The vast wealth of a church establishment, and the 
princely revenues of its incumbents, offer an incentive to 
this sordid passion which Paul in his poverty could never 
have felt, and which none can ever feel, who are contented 
to receive only a humble competence, as a voluntary offer- 
ing at the hands of those for whom they labor. 

8. The system was well suited to guard the church from 
the evils of a sectarian spirit. 

In the church of Christ were Jews, jealous for the law of 
their fathers. There were also Greeks, who, independent 
of the Mosaic economy, had received the gospel and be- 

18 # 


210 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


come Christians, without being Jews in spirit. Had now 
the church assumed the form of a national establishment, 
with its prescribed articles of faith, its ritual, ete., it is 
difficult to conceive how the opposing views of these differ- 
ent parties could have been harmonized. The disturbing 
influence of a sectarian spirit was strongly manifested in 
all the churches, so that it required all the wisdom and in- 
fluence of the apostles to unite their Christian converts in 
an organization so simple as that which they did establish. 

9. It lett the apostles and pastors free to pursue their 
great work without let or hindrance from ecclesiastical 
authority or partisan zeal. 

An explanation, given and received in the spirit of mu- 
tual confidence, reconciled the brethren whose prejudice 
was excited by the preaching of Peter to the Gentiles. The 
unhappy division between Paul and Barnabas ended in the 
furtherance of the gospel, both being at liberty, notwith- 
standing this sinful infirmity, to prosecute their labors for 
the salvation of men without being arrested by the ban of 
a hierarchy or trammeled by ecclesiastical jealousy. 

10. The order of the primitive church was calculated to 
preserve peace and harmony among the clergy. 

One in rank and power, and holding the tenure of their 
office at the will of their people, they had few temptations, 
comparatively, to engage in strife one with another for pre- 
ferment. 

We know, indeed, that Jerome assigns the origin of epis- 
copacy to the ambitious contentions of the clergy in the 
primitive church; as though this were an expedient to heal 
their divisions. If this be true, we have only to say that 
the remedy proved to be infinitely worse than the evil which 
it would cure. After the rise of diocesan episcopacy and 
the establishment of the various grades of the hierarchy, 
the spirit of faction rose high among the clergy. Insatiable 


REMARKS. 211 


ambition possessed all orders among the priesthood, raging 
like a pestilence through their several ranks. The age of 
Constantine and his successors, within which the system of 
prelacy was matured, was pre-eminently the age of clerical 
ambition. 

“In the age we speak of, which seems too justly styled 
ambitions saeculum, the age of ambition, though those whose 
designs agree with the humor of it have esteemed it most 
inimitable, scarce any in the church could keep their own 
that had any there greater than themselves; some bishops, 
and not only the presbyters, found it so, the great still en- 
croaching upon those whose dower condition made them ob- 
noxious to the ambition and usurpation of the more potent. 

“Jn that unhappy time, what struggling was there in 
bishops of all sorts for more greatness. and larger power! 
What tugging at councils and court for these purposes.” ἢ 

Socrates, the ecclesiastical historian, A. D. 439, alleges 
that he has intermingled the history of the wars of those 
times as a relief to the reader, that he may not be continu- 
ally detained with the ambitious contentions, gedovixia, of 
the bishops and their plots and counterplots against each 
other.* 

11. It was happily suited to ensure to the people a use- 
ful and efficient ministry. 

Select a few from among their ministerial brethren, exalt 
them to the high places of episcopal power, encircle them 
with the mitre, the robe, and all the “paraphernalia of pon- 
tifical dignity,” enthrone them securely in authority, settle 
them quietly in their palaces to enjoy the ample benefices 
of an irresponsible office; and, however gratifying may be 
the favors which you have bestowed, you have done little 
to advance their ministerial usefulness. 

32 Clarkson’s Primitive Episcopacy, Works, p. 221. 
33 Introduction to Lib. 5. 


212 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


Besides, the days of a bishop’s activity and usefulness 
soon pass away, but his office still remains. When once 
made bishop, and when he has thus received the indelible, 
invisible mark of episcopal grace, he is absolutely shut up 
to the necessity of continuing in office, however unworthy 
or unfit he may prove or find himself to be.” 

What an incumbrance to the ministrations of the truth 
as it is in Jesus, again, are the forms and rites and observ- 
ances of the Episcopal service! Here are thirty-six festivals 
and one hundred fasts, as specified in the prayer book, an- 
nually claiming the attention of the preacher. Then there 
is the “holy catholic church,” the mysteries of the sacra- 
ments, baptismal regeneration, and the awful presence in 
the elements of the eucharist; the holy order of bishops, 
“the ascending orders of the hierarchy,” “the most excel- 
lent liturgy,” the validity of episcopal ordination, “cove- 
nant mercies,” ete., ete., all pressing their claims on the 
attention of the Episcopal minister and demanding a place 
in the ministrations of the pulpit. 

Add to these the sublimer doctrines of prelacy. Let him 
begin to discourse about apostolic succession, divine right, 
postures, attitudes, “wax candles, altar-cloths, chaplets, 
crosses, crucifixes, and mummery of all kinds,” and it is 
not difficult to conjecture what place the great doctrine of 


34 Constit. and Canons of Prot. Epis. Church, pp. 301, 303. “So 
far,’ says Dr. Hawks, “as our research has extended, this law is with- 
out a precedent in the history of the Christian church. We may be 
mistaken, but we believe that ours is the first church in Christendom 
that ever legislated for the express purpose of preventing episcopal 
resignations; for this canon prescribes so many restrictions that the 
obstacles render it almost impossible for a bishop to lay down his ju- 
risdiction. The matter is one which the practice of the church has 
heretofore left to be settled between God and the conscience of the 
bishops, and it may well be questioned whether it be not best in all 
cases there to leave it.” —Cited from Smyth’s Eccl. Republicanism, p. 167. 


REMARKS. 213 


Christ and him crucified must hold in his teachings, or 
what efficacy his ministry will have in winning souls to 
Christ by the preaching of the truth as it is in Jesus. 

But how different from all this was the ministry of Christ 
and of the apostles! Armed with the panoply of heaven, 
the word of God alone, the sword of the Spirit, the first 
preachers of the Christian religion went forth conquering 
and to conquer. By the simple instrumentality of the 
word, mighty through God to the pulling down of strong- 
holds, they quickly spread the triumphs of the cross through 
every land, and carried up their conquests to the very throne 
of the Caesars. Be ours a religion that creates and enjoys 
such a ministry. 

12. This primitive system served to make an efficient 
laity. 

Instead of excluding them from the concerns of the 
church, like some other forms of church government, and 
requiring of them chiefly to attend to their forms of wor- 
ship and pay their taxes, this primitive system of ecclesias- 
tical polity devolved upon the members of the church the 
duties of discipline and the care of the church. It trained 
them to live and to care for the interests of religion. It 
quickened their graces by calling them into habitual exer- 
cise. It gave an efficient practical character to their re- 
ligion. Look at those churches in England and America 
which bear the closest resemblance to this primitive organ- 
ization. Observe their members in the private walks of 
life. Look at their efficiency in missionary operations, their 
noble charities, and their generous labors in every depart- 
ment of Christian benevolence. They are not merely de- 
vout worshipers within the church and decent moralists 
without, but everywhere eminently intelligent, efficient and 
liberal. They serve God as well as worship him. Not con- 
tent merely to cultivate the private virtues of the Christian, 


914 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


the laity gain a habit of counseling and acting for the 
church and for their fellow-men, which gives to their re- 
ligion an enterprising, practical, business character.” But 
the general character of any people is moulded and formed 
by the government, civil and religious, under which they 
live.* 

13. Such an ecclesiastical organization as that which we 
have been contemplating, harmonizes with and fosters our 
free institutions. 

There is a mutual relation and adaptation between our 
free, republican government and a popular ecclesiastical 
organization like that of the apostolical and primitive 
church. Such a system harmonizes with our partialities 
and prejudices; it coincides with our national usages; it is 
congenial with all our civil institutions. This consideration 
is enough of itself to outweigh, a thousand-fold, all that has 


35 “Oh that we had the zeal of some other denominations of Chris- 
tians, against whom we too often boast ourselves, but whose liberality 
puts our penuriousness to open shame! It is but a few days since a 
single firm in this city, consisting of three members, gave $15,000 to 
sustain the Presbyterian Theological Seminary of New York; yet 
Bishop Mellvaine, wanting little more than this same sum to relieve 
one of the noblest of the institutions of our church, has to beg from 
city to city, from rich to poor, and is at this moment in anxious sus- 
pense whether his mission may not fail because men are lovers of 
their own selves, instead of being constrained by the love of Christ to 
give freely of what they have so freely received. It may be stated as 
a humiliating fact, showing the low estate of our church, that no sum 
above $250 has yet been received from any one in aid of Kenyon Col- 
lege, though numbers reside in this city who could cancel the debt 
themselves, and never feel the loss of so trifling a sum. When shall 
we see men awakening to a sense of their responsibility and their 
stewardship to God? When shall we hear them exclaim, with Zac- 
cheus, ‘ Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor?’ ””—Fpis. Ree. 
Oct. 21, 1843. 

36 Comp. Milton’s Prose Works, Vol. I. p. 167. 


REMARKS. "2.32 


’ ever been urged in favor of prelacy. Indeed, the spiritual 
despotism of that system, its absolute monarchical powers, 
constitute one strong objection to it. It is the religion of 
despots and tyrants. Such, in its papal form, it has always 
been ; and such, we cannot doubt, is still one inherent char- 
acteristic of high, exclusive episcopacy, however it may be 
modified by circumstances. The Church of England, from 
the time of its establishment, says Macaulay, “continued 
to be, for more than one hundred and fifty years, the servile 
handmaid of monarchy, the steady enemy of public liber- 
ty.’*" James, the tyrant of that age, uniformly silenced 
every plea in behalf of the Puritans, with the significant 
exclamation, “ No bishop, no king, and no king, no bishop.” 
So indispensable is the hierarchy to a monarchy. But ina 
free republic it is a monstrous anomaly. 

On the other hand, be it remembered, “the New Testa- 
ment is emphatically a republican book. It sanctions no 
privileged orders; it gives no exclusive rights. All who 
imbibe its spirit and obey its precepts are recognized as 
equals; children of the same Father; brethren and sisters 
in Christ, and heirs to a common inheritance. 

“The Puritans imbibed the same spirit, and derived their 
principles from the same pure source of light, of holiness 
and freedom. They modeled their churches after the 
primitive form, and founded them on the basis of entire in- 
dependence and equality of rights. Twice in their native 
land had they saved the British constitution from being 
crushed by the usurpations of the Stuarts; and Hume, who 
was never backward to reproach both their character and 
their principles, is compelled to acknowledge that what of 
liberty breathes in that constitution is to be ascribed to the 
influence of the Puritans.” These were the men who settled 


37 Miscellanies, Boston ed. I. p. 249. 
38 “So absolute, indeed, was the authority of the crown, that the 


216 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


New England. They came here bearing in their bosoms 
the sacred love of liberty and religion; and ere they left 
the little bark that had borne them across the ocean, they 
formed themselves ‘into a civil body politic,’ having for its 
basis this fundamental principle, that they should be ruled 
by the majority. Here is brought out the grand idea of a 
free, elective government.” 

“Many more graceful and more winning forms τ human 
nature there have been, and are, and shall be; many men, 
many races there are, and have been, and shall be, of more 
genial dispositions, more tasteful accomplishments, a quicker 
eye for the beautiful of art and nature, less disagreeably 
absorbed, less gloomily careful and troubled about the 
mighty interests of the spiritual being or of the common- 
Weal. But where, in the long series of ages that 
furnish the matter of history, was there ever one—where 
one, better fitted by the possession of the highest traits of 
man, to do the noblest work of man; better fitted to consum- 
mate and establish the Reformation—to save the English 
constitution, at its last gasp, from the fate of other European 
constitutions, and prepare, on the granite and iced moun- 
tain summits of the New World, a still better rest for a still 
better liberty ?” ® 

In conclusion, we would acknowledge, with devout grati- 
tude to God, the rich inheritance which we have received 
precious spark of liberty had been kindled and was preserved by the 
Puritans; and it was to this sect, whose principles appear so frivolous, 
and habits so ridiculous, that the English owe the whole freedom of 
their constitution.” Again, “It was only during the next generation 
that the noble principles of liberty took root, and spreading themselves 
under the shelter of Puritanical absurdities, became fashionable among 
the people.” — Hume's Eng. Vol. V. pp. 183, 469. 

39. Hawes’ Tribute to the Memory of the Pilgrims, pp. 61-63, 83, 84. 

40 Speech of Hon. Rufus Choate before N. Eng. Soc. N. York, Dee. 
25, 1843. . 


REMARKS. pep ly 


from our Puritan forefathers, in the religious institutions 
which they have transmitted to us. 

They have given us a religion, more nearly allied, both 
in spirit and in form, to scriptural Christianity, than any 
other that has ever risen upon the world—a religion, more 
abundant in blessings, and more highly to be prized than 
any other; a religion, from which the whole American 
system, with all its institutions, social, civil and religious, 
has arisen. Our pilgrim fathers, while at anchor off our 
coast, and before they set foot upon these shores, after solemn 
prayer to the God of nations, entered mutually into a solemn 
compact, on board the Mayflower, to establish a govern- 
ment here “for the glory of God and the advancement of 
the Christian faith.’ With this intent they landed and 
entered upon their great work, as if conscious of their high 
destiny, reared up by God to establish and extend those 
principles of civil and religious freedom which they had so | 
nobly defended in their fatherland. There they had suf- 
fered the loss of all things and shed their blood freely in 
their inflexible adherence to these principles. Harassed 
and wearied, but not dismayed, by their continual bonds, 
imprisonments and persecutions at home, and by their exile 
abroad, they resolved to seek an asylum in the wilderness 
of the New World, where, in peaceful seclusion, they might 
establish a government “for the glory of God and the ad- 
vancement of the Christian faith.” The Bible was their 
statute-book ; and their religion, that primitive Christianity 
which God gave to the world through the medium of our 
Lord and his apostles. In fulfillment of their design, their 
first care was to set up the tabernacle of the Lord in this 
wilderness. They erected the church, and fast by this the 
school-house; then the court-house, the academy, the col- 
lege, while yet they were of one faith and one name. No 
other form of religion was known, in this land of the pil- 

19 K 


218 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


grims, until the great principles of the American system 
were developed and established here by our Puritan fore- 
fathers. 

They were no ordinary men. They lived for no ordinary 
purpose. They were men the most remarkable that the 
world has ever produced. They lived for a nobler end, 
for a higher destiny than any others that have ever lived. 
These are the men to whom our country owes her religion, 
with all the blessings, social, civil and literary, that follow 
in its train. These are the venerable men whose blood still 
flows in our veins, and into whose inheritance we have en- 
tered. Peace to their silent shades. Fragrant as the breath 
of morning be their memory. The winds of two centuries 
have swept over their graves. The effacing hand of time 
has wellnigh worn away the perishable monuments which 
may have marked the spot where sleeps their honored dust. 
But they still live. They live in the immortal principles 
which they taught ;—in the enduring institutions which 
they established. They live in the remembrance of a grate- 
ful posterity; and they will live on, through all time, in 
the gratitude of unborn generations, who, in long succes- 
sion, shall rise up and call them blessed. And shall we, 
‘who keep the graves, and bear the names, and boast the 
blood” of these men, disown their church, or cast out as 
evil and revile their religion? No; by the memory of 
these noble men; by their holy lives, their heavenly prin- 
ciples, their sacred institutions; by the sustaining strength 
which they themselves are still giving to our own freedom, 
and to the great cause of civil and religious liberty through- 
out the earth—let us never give up the religion of our 
fathers. No, never, never! 


CHAPTER ἸΧ, 
THE RISE OF EPISCOPACY. 


THE rise of the episcopate is perhaps the most difficult 
problem in ecclesiastical history. This change in the or- 
ganization of the apostolical churches begins about the 
middle of the second century, within one hundred years of 
the apostles, and half a century from St. John the Evangel- 
ist. It is introduced without controversy, discussion or 
objection “before the apostles are cold in their graves.” 

Episcopacy asserts and challenges an explanation. We 
accept the challenge, acknowledging the difficulty. 

But the theory of episcopacy involves difficulties, on the 
other hand, still greater. It claims that from the first there 
was an order of ministers in the church superior to that of 
presbyters; that this order is indispensable to the organiza- 
tion and government of the church, the administration of 
its ordinances and the consecration of its officers. All 
clerical authority and grace centres in this order, so that 
without it there is, there can be, no church on earth. And 
yet this superior order—the life and power of the church— 
not only had, for many years, no distinctive name of its 
own, but was by the apostles mingled indiscriminately 
and interchangeably with an inferior order, so that both 
orders had two names in common with each other. That is, 
the apostles themselves, in setting in order the churches, 
make an entire distinction in these offices, but an entire con- 
fusion in their names. The two offices, entirely distinct, 
totally unlike, have each two names in common; or, to 

219 


220 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


reverse the statement, these two names are applied indis- 
criminately by divine appointment and by inspiration to 
two offices which are entirely different! Such confusion on 
subjects so momentous, and from such a source, verily tran- 
scends all belief! It makes the Bible the most deceptive, 
unintelligible book that was ever written. 

This change in the polity of the church, again, is offset 
by other ecclesiastical changes, the history of which is 
equally unknown—the general adoption of the sign of the 
cross; the change from adult to infant baptism, or the con- 
trary; the use of the chrism in baptism; standing at the 
Lord’s supper at one time, kneeling at another; the multi- 
plication of offices in the church: lectors, acolytes, sub- 
deacons. What authentic contemporary history records 
these changes ? 

The appointment and ecclesiastical ascendancy so readily 
acquired by the bishop, when attentively considered, admits 
a reasonable explanation. Various causes may have fa- 
vored the ascendancy. The parochial system, as in history 
it is denominated, may have favored his promotion. 

The church of the metropolis became, in the quaint style 
of church history, the mother-church to smaller, dependent 
fraternities in the country; and the clerical head of this 
church, the principal man among his brethren, the presid- 
ing officer of their assemblies and councils. This accidental 
ascendancy of the central church, and of its clergy, led on 
the rapid development of the episcopal system ; and, finally, 
ended in the overthrow of the popular government of the 
primitive church. 

The gospel was first preached in large cities and towns, 
such as Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus and Corinth. These 
churches then became central points of effort and of influ- 
ence for the extension of Christianity in the region round- 
about. 


THE RISE OF EPISCOPACY. 221 


The early Christians were often dispersed abroad, also, 
by persecution ; and, like the first Christians, Acts viii. 4, 
“ went everywhere preaching the word.” 

Strangers and visitors in the principal cities, where the 
gospel was preached, frequently became converts to Christ, 
and returned home to make known his gospel, as they 
might have opportunity and ability, in the places where 
they resided. | 

When it became expedient for Christian converts in the 
country to have separate places of worship, these new or- 
ganizations took the form of the parent church, and still 
looked to that for instruction and support as they might 
need. This dependence gave rise to a gradual connection 
and coalition between the churches in the country and 
the central church in the city. That dependence and the 
consequent coalition was the result of various natural causes 
and local circumstances which claim a more specific enu- 
meration. 

1. The churches in the country were only branches of the 
parent stock, and owned a filial relation to the mother- 
church. 

2. They received their first spiritual teachers and pastors 
from this church; and these would naturally retain their 
attachment to the church from which they came. 

3. The connection between the country and the city, in 
the ordinary course of business, had its influence in bring- 
ing the churches in the country into connection with that 
in the city. 

4. The persecution, and consequent distress which came 
upon the churches, brought them into closer connection one 
with another. 

5. The city was the centre of political influence and 
power for the government and protection of the country. 
This consideration had its influence in promoting a similar 


19 # 


py ov THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


relation between the churches in the city and those in the 
country. 

6. An ancient custom obtained, of attributing to those 
churches which had been founded by the apostles a superior 
degree of honor and a more exalted dignity. On which 
account it was usual, when any dispute arose respecting 
principles or tenets, for the opinion of these churches to be 
asked. In cases of doubt and controversy the Christians 
of the West had recourse to the church of Rome; those of 
Africa, to that of Alexandria; and those of Asia, to that 
of Antioch for counsel.’ ) 

7. The city church was comparatively rich and power- 
ful; and could administer to the wants of the feeble churches 
as they might need. 

8. Protection and aid from the civil authority was chiefly 
to be sought through the same medium. The minister of 
the city could apply in their behalf to the Roman governors 
who resided there. 

Thus, in various ways, the churches in the large cities, 
in process of time, gathered about them several smaller 
churches in the vicinity, over which they extended their 
guardianship and care. 

The above representations exhibit the rise of the diocesan 
form of government, not as based on any “theory of the 
church,” but as an expedient for the peace of the church, 
and the result of the mutual relations of the churches in 
the country to that in the city. The church of the metrop- 
olis gradually spread itself out as an extensive parish over 
the adjacent territory. And the presiding presbyter of this 
city became, virtually, the bishop over the same extent of 
country. “ Was it not natural and according to the ordi- 
nary course of things to make a distinction between the 


1 Comp. Mosheim, De Rebus Christ. Saec, IT. 2 21. 


THE RISE OF EPISCOPACY. pes: 


bishop of the city and the other clergy? Would not they 
themselves cheerfully make the distinction, and give him 
special tokens of their consideration? Would they not 
accost him with peculiar respect, and by silent consent give 
him the pre-eminence? And would he not, on the other 
hand, requite all this by his manifold services?” * 

Throughout the second and third centuries there was no 
established law or rule binding the smaller churches in a 
coalition with the greater, or bringing them into subjection 
to it. But that which at first was conceded voluntarily 
was afterward claimed as a right. Conventional usage be- 
came established law; the controlling influence of the bishop 
an official prerogative; and thus, in the end, the diocesan 
form of government was settled upon the church. 

This view of the subject is not new, nor is it put forth as 
original with the writer. It has the sanction of many au- 
thors, from whom the above particulars have been derived. 
Of these it is sufficient to mention Spittler,’ Pertsch,* Mo- 
sheim,° Planck,’ Neander,’ Guerike,® Siegel,? Schoene,”” W. 


Béhmer,” D’ Aubigné.” 


2 Gesellschafts-Verfass., I. 5. 82, 83. Comp. also 546-562, respect- 
ing this system at a later period. 

3 Can. Rechts. 3 4-10. 

4 ΤΡ. 3 17-23, und Kirchen Hist., Sec. II. 

5 De Rebus Christ. Saec., 11. 2 37, note 3. 

Gesell. Verfass. S. 18-83, 546-672. 

7 Allgem. Kirchen Gesch. 1, 2d ed. 8. 314-816. Tr. pp. 184-186. 
Comp. his Apost. Gesch. 1, 50, 198, seq., 406. Allgem. Kirch. 1, 327, 
328, 2d ed. Tr. pp. 191, 192. 

§ ib. 8. 95-97. 

9 Kirchliche Verfass. 2, 8. 454-473; 4, S. 378. 

10 Geschichtsforschungen, Vol. ὃ, 5. 336-340. See also Cone. Car- 
thag. c. 31; Bracar. c. 1; Agath. c. 538; Tarracon. c. 8. 

1 Alterthumswissenschaft. 1, S. 230-236. 

12 Hist. of Reformation, Vol. I. p. 18. N. Y. 1843. 


224 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


The care of the churches was entrusted, not to one man, 
but to several, who constituted a college of presbyters, and 
divided the duties of their office among themselves. Vari- 
ous circumstances early gave rise to a distinction among 
the elders, and, finally, to their permanent division into 
bishops and presbyters. 

1. The appointment of a presiding elder over the col- 
lege of presbyters in the churches. A plurality of elders 
represents the church at Jerusalem, at Ephesus, Acts 
xx. 17-28; at Philippi, Phil. i. 1, and in the cities in 
Crete. In such a college of elders it would be convenient, 
if not indispensable, for one of their number to act as the 
moderator or president of their assemblies. Such a desig- 
nation, however, would confer on the presiding elder no 
official superiority over his fellow-presbyters; but, coupled 
with age and talents and spiritual gifts, it might give him 
a controlling influence in the government of the church. 
This control, and his official rank as the προεστώς, the pre- 
siding elder, which was first conceded to him by his fellow- 
presbyters only as to a fellow-presbyter, a primus inter pares, 
he began in time to claim as his official prerogative. This 
assumption of authority gave rise to the gradual distinction 
between bishop and presbyter, and in the course of the sec- 
ond and third centuries resulted in the division of the clergy 
into two distinct orders, bishops and presbyters. 

This exposition of the origin of the episcopal office has the 
sanction of the most approved authorities, particularly of the 
distinguished historian whose works we have so often cited,” 


13 Apost. Kirch. 1, 39, seq., 3d ed. 50, 198, seq., 406. Allgem. 
Gesch. 1, 324, seq., 2d ed. “In the Acts, a plurality of presbyters 
always appears next in rank to the apostles, as representatives of the 
church at Jerusalem. If any one is disposed to maintain that each 
one of these presbyters presided over a smaller part of its special meet- 
ings, still it must be thereby established that, notwithstanding these 


THE RISE OF EPISCOPACY. 925 


to whom we may add Gieseler,’* Guerike,” Gabler,'® Mosh- 
eim,"’ Pertsch,* and many others. 

2. The duties and responsibilities of the bishop in times 
of persecution had their influence in exalting this officer, 
and separating him further both from the presbyters and 
the people. The bishop of the metropolis became the coun- 
selor and guardian of the churches. 

e. The rage and vengeance of their persecutors fell often- 
est upon him; and, while it excited for him the sympathy 
and veneration of the churches, prepared them more readily 
to acquiesce in his authority.” 

4. As the church increased in number, the intercourse 
between each member individually and the bishop became 
less, and a corresponding separation between him and his 
people of necessity ensued. 

5. Many of the bishops were the successors of the apostles, 
or were bishops of apostolical churches, and this circum- 
stance gave them additional influence.” The bishops of 


divided meetings, the church formed a whole, over which this delib- 
erative college of presbyters presided, and therefore the form of gov- 
ernment was still of a popular character.”—Neander, Apost. Kirch. I, 
6. 2, 3d ed. “This plurality of ministers over the same church con- 
tinued, even to the fourth century, to be the order of the churches.”— 
Planck, Gesell. Verfass. 1, 551. 

14 Lehrbuch der Kirchengesch. 3, Aufl. 1, 118. 

19 Kirch. Geschichte, I. S. 89-98, 2d ed. 

16 De Epis. primae eccl. Eorumque origine. 

1 Hist. Eccl. 3, p. 108, seq., and Kirchenrecht, by Ernst, S. 52. 

18 Can. Recht. S. 42. Kirch. Hist., Saec. IT. c. 5, 2 8-15. Com- 
pare, especially, Ziegler’s Versuch der Gesch. der Kirch. Verfass. 5. 
34-61. 

19 Spittler’s Can. Recht. ο. 1, 2 5. 

2?» Comp. Tertull., De Praescript. Advers. Haeret. c. 20, 26, 36. 
Peter de Marca, de Concord. Sacerd. et Im. Lib. 5, c. 20. Lib. 7, ec. 
4, 2 6, seq. 

K * 


226 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


> and others, derived 


Rome,” of Carthage, of Jerusalem,’ 
‘importance from this consideration.” 

6. The distinction between the clergy and laity, which be- 
gan about this time, is worthy of particular notice. In the 
apostolical churches the office of teaching was not restricted 
to any particular class of persons. All Christians accounted 
themselves the priests of God; and between the church and 
their spiritual leaders very little distinction was known. 
This fact is so universally acknowledged that it were need- 
less to multiply authorities in proof of it. But it forcibly 
indicates the nature of the original constitution of the 
church.* The distinction, accordingly, of pastors and peo- 
ple into two distinct orders, the clergy and the Jaity, dis- 
tinctly marks the workings of that spirit which was fast 
obliterating the features of its early organization. Tertul- 
lian, 7218, is the first to mention this distinction.” The 
people have now become an inferior order, the distinction 

_ between them and the higher order of the clergy widens 
fast, and the government of the church which has hitherto 

1 Trenaeus Advers. Haer. Lib. 3, c. 2; 4, c. 26; 5, ο. 20, 44. 

22 Firmil. ap. Cyp. Epist. 75. 

23 Mosheim, De Rebus Christ., Saec. II. 2 21. In this section and 
the accompanying note is given a full and interesting illustration of 
the canonical authorities of such churches. Comp. also Gieseler, 
Lehrbuch, S. 160-163. Note. 

24 Nonne et laici sacerdotes sumus? Differentiam inter ordinem et 
plebem constituit ecclesiae auctoritas; adeo ubi ecclesiastici ordinis 
non est consessus et offers, et tingis et sacerdos tibi es solus.—De Ex- 
hortat. Castit. c. 7, p. 522. Primum omnes docebant et omnes bapti- 
zabant; ut cresceret plebs et multiplicaretur omnibus inter initia con- 
cessus est et evangelizare et baptizare et scripturas explorare.— Hilary, 
cited by Neander, Allgem. Gesch. I. 8. 311. Vol. 1. Tr. p. 182. Comp. 
S. 324, seq., especially 335-337, 2d ed. Comp. Cyprian, Ep. 76. 
Suicer, Thesaurus, art. κλῆρος, Guerike, Kirch. Gesch. Vol. 93, 94, 
and J. H. Bohmer, De Differentia inter Ordinem Ecclesiast., ete. 

25. De Monogamia, 6. 12, p. 533. 


THE RISE OF EPISCOPACY. 997 


been vested in the people passes rapidly into the hands of 
the bishop. 

7. The clergy begin to claim authority from the analogy 
between their office and that of the Jewish priesthood. 
They are no longer incumbents in office at the pleasure of 
the people and dependent upon them, but divinely consti- 
tuted the priests of God, and divinely appointed by him to 
instruct and to rule over the church. ‘“ When once the 
idea of a Mosaic priesthood had been adopted in the Chris- 
tian church, the clergy soon began to assume a superiority 
over the laity. The customary form of consecration was 
now supposed to have a certain mystic influence, and hence- 
forth they stand in the position of persons appointed by 
God to be the medium of communication between him and 
the Christian world.” ἢ 

8. From this it was but a slight modification to assert the 
divine right of episcopacy and the apostolical succession in 
the line of the bishops. Sentiments to this effect are of fre- 
quent occurrence in the writings of Cyprian, +258. The 
bishops also assumed new titles, such as sacerdotes,” priests, 
high-priests, rulers of the church, etc.” 

Finally, these arrogant assumptions ended in the claim 
of guidance and wisdom from on high by the communica- 
tions of the Spirit of God. This was also the false and flat- 


26 Gieseler, Cunningham’s Trans. I. p. 156. Comp. Miinscher, 
Handbuch der Christ. Dog. 3, p. 15. Conder’s Protestant Noncon- 
formity, Vol. I. p. 224. Comp. Planck, Gesell. Verfass. I. 5. 163. 
Mosheim de Rebus. Saec., II. 3 24. 

21 Comp. Cyp. Ep. 3, 4, 59. Spitler’s Can. Recht. c. 1. @ 11. 
Henke, Allgem. Gesch. der Christ. Kirch. 1, p. 120. Mosheim, De 
Rebus, Saec. III. @ 24. 

8 Origen, Hom. 2, in Jer. Adv. Cels. Lib. 8. In Math. Tract. 
31, 32. 


228 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


tering dream of Cyprian,” and has been the favorite dogma 
of prelacy from his time to the present day. 

The following comprehensive summary offers a fit con- 
clusion to the preceding remarks: “In process of time the 
bishops found means to abridge the rights of the presbyters, 
the deacons and the people. Such is the course of the 
world. They who are honored with the respect and en- 
trusted with the affairs of society, agreeably to the natural 
love which every man has for pre-eminence, seek for greater 
distinction, and the people favor the desire. Strife and 
contention are the necessary consequences of dividing offices 
of trust among many, and these struggles usually end in 
the advancement of him who is highest in office. Even 
Cyprian, who acknowledged the authority of the church 
over the bishop, and his duty in all things to act in concert 
with the clergy, had still the address so to exalt the power 
of the bishop as to overthrow the rights both of the clergy 
and the people. He affirmed that God made the bishops, 
that they were the vicegerents of Christ, and responsible to 
none but to God. He was the father of this dogma; and 
the bishops continued to claim this prerogative until the 
ninth century, when the pope appropriated it exclusively 
to himself.” 

The bishops rose in rank and power, not by any sudden 
and violent assumption of diocesan authority, but by the 
silent concession and approbation, at first, of both the pres- 
byters and the people. 

The most competent and reliable authority on the subject 
of the rise of episcopacy is Jerome, of the fourth century, 
one of the most learned and candid of the fathers. He 


29 Placuit nobis sancto spiritu suggerente et Domino per visiones 
multas et manifestas admonente.—Cyprian, Epist. 54, p.79. Cone. 
Car. A. D. 282. 

30 Kirchenrecht, by Ernst. 8. 61-63. 


THE RISE OF EPISCOPACY. 229 


asserts the original equality and identity of presbyters and 
bishops. In proof of this identity he appeals to the use in- 
terchangeably of presbyters and bishops as different names 
of one and the same office. But a change was introduced 
gradually, “paulatim,’ by which the bishop was distin- 
guished from presbyters as the moderator of their presby- 
tery, himself being only a presbyter, primus inter pares. 
This appointment of a bishop by the presbyters-as their 
presiding officer was an expedient to suppress the schisms 
that had arisen in the churches by the instigation of Satan. 
Once invested with authority to act efficiently in his over- 
sight of the churches, he might, it was presumed, more suc- 
cessfully heal their divisions. Bishop and presbyter being 
still the same, the one term became descriptive of age; the 
other, of office.** By enlarging the powers of this office, 
committing the care of the churches into the hands of an 
efficient overseer, their disorders might be healed and peace 
promoted. Their ablest and most influential men being se- 
lected for this office, became the centre of authority and 


31 Aliud aetatis, aliud esse nomen officii. Comment in Epist. ad 
Tit. Llnd nomen dignitatis est; hoc aetatis Epist. 83 ad Oceanum 
presbyterum. Presbyter et episcopus, aliud aetatis, aliud dignitatis 
est nomen.—Epist. 85 ad Evagrium.—Ad Evangelum. 

Idem est ergo presbyter qui et episcopus; et antequam Diaboli in- 
stinctu, studia in religione fierent, et disceretur in populis. Ego sum 
Pauli; ego Apollo; ego autem Cephae, communi presbyterorum con- 
silio ecclesiae gubernantur. Posquam vero unusquisque eos quos bap- 
tizaverat suos putabat esse non Christi, in toto orbe decretum est ut 
unus de presbyteris electus superponeretur caeteris, ad quem omnis 
ecclesiae cura pertineret, et schismatum semina tollerentur.—Com- 
ment in Epist. ad Tit. 

Audi et aliud testimonium in quo manifestissime comprobatur eun- 
dem esse episcopum atque presbyterum. . . . Quod autem postea 
unus electus est qui caeteris praeponeretur, in schismatis remedium 
factum est.—Epist. 85 ad Evagriwm.—Ad Evangelum. 

20 


230 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


power, and gradually arrogated to themselves the principal 
share in the government of the churches. 

The testimony of Hilary, a learned contemporary of Je- 
rome, fully sustains his authority respecting the rise of the 
episcopate. At first, all were accustomed to teach and to 
baptize; but after the general establishment of the churches, 
a different order prevailed. The deacons were not per- 
mitted to preach, nor the clergy or the laity to baptize. 
Bishops and presbyters were the same, but when presbyters 
were found unworthy of their prerogatives, a change was 
made in the mode of appointing a chairman of the elder- 
ship, not by seniority, but by election—according to merit 
rather than age.” 

This theory of Jerome and Hilary respecting the rise of 
episcopacy is adopted by Neander in the following para- 
graph: 

“Since the presbyters constituted a deliberative assem- 


32 Primum enim omnes docebant et omnes baptizabant quibuscunque 
diebus vel temporibus fuisset occasio. . . . Ut ergo cresceret plebs et mul- 
tiplicaretur, omnibus inter initia concessum est et evangelizare, et bap- 
tizare et scripturas in ecclesia explanare. At ubi omnia loca cireum- 
plexa est ecclesia, conventicula constituta sunt, et rectores, et cetera 
officia in ecclesiis sunt ordinata; ut nullus de clero auderet, qui ordi- 
natus non esset, praesumere officium quod sciret non 5101 creditum vel 
concessum ; et coepit alio ordine et providentia gubernari ecclesia; 
quia si omnes eadem possent, irrationabile esset, et vulgaris res, et 
vilissima videretur. Hinc ergo est unde nunc neque diaconi in populo 
praedicant, nec clerici vel laici baptizant, neque quocunque die cre- 
dentes tinguntur nisi aegri. Ideo non per omnia conyeniunt scripta 
Apostoli ordinationi quae nunc in ecclesia est, quia haec inter ipsa 
primordia sunt scripta; nam et Timotheus (presbyterum ἃ se crea- 
tum) episcopum vocat; quia primum presbyteri episcopi appellaban- 
tur, ut recedente uno sequeus ei succederet. Denique apnd Hgyptum 
presbyteri consignant, si praesens non sit episcopus. Sed quia coepe- 
runt sequentes presbyteri indigni inveniri ad primatus tenendos, im- 
matuta est ratio, prospiciente Concilio ut non ordo sed meritum crearet 


THE RISE OF EPISCOPACY. Vou 


bly, it would of course soon become the practice for one of 
their number to preside over the rest. . . . Soon after the 
apostolic age, the standing office of president of the pres- 
bytery must have been formed; which president, as hav- 
ing pre-eminently the oversight over all, was designated by 
the special name of βηπίσχοπος, and was thus distinguished 
from the other presbyters. Thus the name came at length 
to be applied exclusively to this presbyter, while the name 
presbyter continued at first to be common to all; for the 
bishops, as presiding presbyters, had no official character 
other than that of the presbyters generally. They were 
only primi inter pares. The aristocratic constitution will 
ever find it easy, by various gradual changes, to pass over 
to the monarchical; and circumstances, when the need be- 
comes felt of guidance by the energy and authority of an 
individual, will have an influence above all things else to 
bring about such a change.” ἢ 

It may be profitable, in this connection, to consider the 
exposition of this origin of episcopacy by a learned and 
liberal English bishop: “After these [the apostles] were 
deceased, and the main power left in the presbyteries, the 
several presbyters enjoying an equal power among them- 
selves, especially being many in one city, thereby great oc- 
casion to many schisms, partly by the bandying of the 
presbyters one against another, partly by the sidings of the 
people with some against the rest, partly by the too com- 
mon use of the power of ordination in presbyters, by which 
they were more able to increase their own party by ordain- 
ing those who would join with them, and by this means to 
perpetuate schisms in the church ;—upon this, when the 


episcopum multorum sacerdotum judicio constitutum; ne indignus 
temere usurparet, et esset multis scandalum.—Comment in Eph. 4, 
Comp. p. 195. 

33 Hist. Vol. I. 190,191. Trans. 


pe THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


wiser and graver sort considered the abuses following the 
promiscuous use of this power of ordination; and, withal, 
having in their minds the excellent frame of the govern- 
ment of the church under the apostles and their deputies, 
and for preventing of further schisms and divisions among 
themselves, they unanimously agreed to choose one out of 
their number who was best qualified for the management 
of so great a trust, and to devolve the exercise of the power 
of ordination and jurisdiction to him; yet so as that he act 
nothing of importance without the consent and concurrence 
of the presbyters, who were still to be as the common coun- 
cil to the bishop. This I take to be the true and just 
account of the original episcopacy in the primitive church, 
according to Jerome; which model of government, thus 
contrived and framed, sets forth to us a most lively cha- 
racter of that great wisdom and moderation which then 
ruled the heads and hearts of the primitive Christians.” * 

The history of the rise of episcopacy in this country illus- 
trates the centralization of power by gradual and silent 
concession. 

It is well known that the introduction of episcopacy into 
this country gave rise to long and bitter controversy. The 
objection, made from within the Episcopal churches as well 
as from without, was, that its form of government is anti- 
republican, and opposed to the spirit of our free institutions. 
The House of Burgesses, in Virginia, composed chiefly of 
Episcopalians, declared their abhorrence of bishops, unless 
at the distance of three thousand miles, and denounced “the 
plan of introducing them, in the most unexceptionable form, 
on this side of the Atlantic, as a pernicious project.” 

When, at last, episcopacy was introduced, it was only by 
a compromise—the Episcopalian churches consenting to 


Stillingfleet’s Irenicum, P. II. chap. VI. 


THE RISE OF EPISCOPACY. aso 


submit to diocesan episcopacy, only in a form greatly modi- 
fied and divested of its most obnoxious features. To the 
exclusion of the laity from a free and full participation in 
the affairs of the government they would not for a moment 
submit. Such, according to Bishop White, was the preju- 
dice of Episcopalians “against the name, and much more 
against the office of a bishop, that, but for the introduction 
of the laity into the government of the church, no general 
organization would probably have been formed.” Accord- 
ingly, the people were allowed freely to choose their own 
pastors, and to have a full representation in all their courts. 
This American episcopacy was so modified, and the pre- 
latical powers of the bishop so restricted by the checks and 
balances of republican principles, that the English prelates, 
on the other hand, were reluctant to confer the episcopate 
upon Bishop White, alleging that he “entertained a design 
to set up episcopacy on the ground of presbyterial and lay 
authority.” 

Such was American episcopacy, at first—dqualified as 
much as possible, by the infusion of popular principles to 
restrain the arbitrary powers of the bishop. But what now 
has this same episcopacy become? What now the powers 
of the bishop, compared with what they then were? He 
possesses power almost as arbitrary as that of an Eastern 
despot; and assumes to rule by an authority independent 
of the will of his subjects. The bishops are permanent and 
irresponsible monarchs, restrained by no judicial tribunal. 
The house of bishops admit no order of the inferior clergy 
to their general convention. They ordain, depose and re- 
store to the ministry, at pleasure, whom they wul; “so that 
a Puseyite bishop may fill the church with impenitent 
and unconverted men.” He can prevent any congregation 
from settling the minister of their choice, or displace one at 
his will, and may, “upon probable cause,” forbid any clergy- 


20 # 


234 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


man from another diocese to officiate in his own. Such is 
the fearful nature of those powers which are now entrusted 
to this spiritual despot in our free republic.” 

All this is in total contrast to the organization of the 
primitive church. In this, “all the members, as organs of 
the whole and of the one spirit which gave it life, were to 
co-operate, each in his appropriate place, for the common 
end; and some of the members acted in this organization 
of parts as the pre-eminently guiding ones. But it could 
hardly work itself out in a natural way, from the essence of 
the Christian life and Christian fellowship, that this guid- 
ance should be placed in the hands of only one individual. 
The monarchical form of government was not suited to the 
Christian community of spirit.” *° 


35 These facts and principles, with the original authorities for them, 
are disclosed more at length in the writings of Dr. Smyth, to whom 
we are chiefly indebted for the above abstract of them. Compare, 
especially, Apost. Succession, pp. 507-509, and Ecclesiastical Repub- 
licanism, pp. 163-172. 

86 Neander, Hist. Vol. I. p. 183. Trans. 


ChAT tux. 
THE PROGRESS OF EPISCOPACY. 


Tue diocesan, metropolitan, patriarchal and papal gov- 
ernment was gradually matured, and settled upon the 
churches in the several provinces at different times. The 
third century may be regarded as the period in which it 
was chiefly consolidated and established. 

The means of its development were: 

1. The formal organization of the diocesan government 
was chiefly effected by means of provincial synods and 
councils. 

The consideration of these councils belongs to another 
work! But whatever may have been their origin, such 
ecclesiastical assemblies were regularly held in Asia Minor 
in the third century, and were frequently convened in other 
provinces, for the transaction of business relating to the 
interests of the church.’ The bishops, having once ac- 
quired the power of giving laws to the church, instead of - 
legislating for the churches in their name and as their rep- 
resentatives, assumed the right of giving laws to the church 
by virtue of their episcopal office ; and for this assumption 
they claimed, as has been already mentioned, the sanction 


1 Ancient Christianity Exemplified, chap. xxiii. pp. 475-488. 

2 Necessario, says Firmilian, A. D. 257, apud nos fit, ut per singulos 
annos seniores et praepositi in unum conveniamus, ad disponenda ea 
quae curae nostrae commissa sunt.—Cyp. Ep. 75, Pp. 143. 


235 


236 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


of divine authority, jure divino, as the ministers of God and 
under the guidance of his Spirit.’ 

The above representation is only an epitome of the senti- 
ments of Planck,* Mosheim and many others.’ Mosheim 
remarks that “these councils were productive of so great 
an alteration in the general state of the church as nearly to 
effect the entire subversion of its ancient constitution. For, 
in the first place, the primitive rights of the people, in con- 
sequence of this new arrangement of things, experienced a — 
considerable diminution, inasmuch as thenceforward none 
but affairs of comparatively trifling importance were ever 
made the subject of popular deliberation and adjustment, 
the councils of the associated churches assuming to them- 
selves the right of discussing and regulating everything of 
moment or importance, as well as of determining all ques- 
tions to which any sort of weight was attached. In the 
next place, the dignity and authority of the bishops were 
very much augmented and enlarged. They at length took 
it upon them to assert that they were the legitimate succes- 
sors of the apostles themselves, and might, consequently, by 
their own proper authority, dictate to the Christian flock. 
To what extent the inconveniences and evils arising out of 
these preposterous pretensions reached in after times is too 
well known to require any particular notice in this place.” ® 


3 Placet! Visum est! is the style not unfrequently in which the sum- 
mary decisions of their councils are given; or if the decision relates to 
an article of faith, credit catholica ecclesia! Athanasius, De Synodo. 
Arimin. et Seluciae, Ferdin. de Mendoza, De Confirmatione Conce., 
Ill. Lib. 2, ο. 2, cited by Spittler. 

4 Gesellschafts-Verfass. I. S. 90-100. 

5 Compare also Henke and Vater, Allgemein. Kirchen Gesch. I. 
S. 120, seq. Eichhorn, Can. Recht. I. 5. 20. Riddle’s Chron. pp. 
32, 33. 

6 De Rebus Christ., Saec. IT. ὁ 23; comp. Saec. IT. 2 22; Saec. III. 
ὁ. 24. Also, Kirch. Recht S. 65, 6 


THE PROGRESS OF EPISCOPACY. Dt 


2. The doctrine of the wnity of the church had an influ- 
ence in consolidating the churches under an episcopal gov- 
ernment. 

This notion was early developed. It occurs in the epistle 
of the church of Smyrna concerning the martyrdom of 
Polyearp.’. It was more distinctly advanced by Irenaeus 
and Tertullian in the second century, and, in the third, be- 
came the favorite dogma of Cyprian,‘ and, after him, of 
many others.’ It contributed to the establishment of uni- 
form laws and regulations under an episcopal hierarchy.” 
This idea of a holy catholic church, one and indivisible, 
extending through all lands and binding together in one 
communion the faithful of every kindred and people, was a 
conception totally unlike the apostolical idea of union in 
love and fellowship in spirit. . 

3. The correspondence and intercourse between the bish- 
ops of different provinces had much influence in establish- 
ing their diocesan authority. 

By mutual understanding they acted unitedly and in 
concert, and aided each other in the promotion of their 
common ends.” 

4. The Disciplina Arcani, the sacred mysteries of the 
church, while they shed an air of awful sanctity over its 
solemnities, were well suited to inspire the people with a 
profound veneration for the bishop, who was the high- 


7 Kuseb. Eccl. Hist. Lib. 4, c. 15,31. A. D. 167. 

8 Pro corpore totius ecclesiae cujus per varias quasque provincias 
membra digesta sunt.— Fp. 30, p. 41. 

® Planck, Gesell. Verfass. I. 5. 100, seq. Rothe, Anf. Christ. Kirch. 
J. S. 576-489. 

10 Neander, Allgem. Gesch. I. 5. 355, 371, 2d ed. Tr. I. pp. 207-217. 
D’ Aubigné’s Hist. of the Reformation. N. Y. 1843. Vol. I. pp. 20-22. 

1 Siegel, Handbuch. 1, art. Briefwechsel, Rheinwald’s Arch. @ 4, 
p. 99. 


238 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


priest of these rites and the chief agent in administering 
them.” 

5. The catechetical instructions and discipline prepara- 
tory to admission into the church had a powerful influence 
in giving authority to the doings of the church and prepar- 
ing the mind for a passive submission to her jurisdiction. 

The candidates for admission were divided into various 
classes; and, ascending by slow gradations through these, 
with manifold solemnities, finally approached the sacred 
shrine of the church. The details of the system belong to 
another work.” “These new regulations were the surest and 
strongest means man could have devised to give greater 
importance to the church in the eyes of the new members; 
and to inspire them with a sense of the importance of the 
privilege bestowed in receiving them into its communion, 
which again would revert to the interests of the church.” τ 

6.. To the same effect, also, was all that system of penance 
which was matured in connection with the foregoing regu- 
lations. 

This was wholly unknown in the early period of the 
ehurch. It was developed in connection with the catechet- 
icul discipline which has already been mentioned, and was 
indeed a part of the same system.” It was administered 
bs the bishop, who alone had authority to inflict or to re- 
move these penances."” Thus it became a scourge in his 


12 Comp. the author’s Ancient Christianity, pp. 276-284. 

18 Comp. Ibid. pp. 118, 302, 399. 

14 Planck, Gesell. Verfass. I. S. 132. 

15 Planck, Gesell. Verfass. I. S. 131-141. 

16 The councils of Nice, A. D. 325, ο. 5, and of Antioch, A. D. 841, 
c. 20, make some provision against the flagrant injustice which one 
might suffer in this way from the bishop. But the council of Elli- 
beris, A. Ὁ. 305, and of Sardica, A. D. 347, give to the bishop unlim- 
ited authority in this matter. Osius, episcopus dixit. Hoe quoque 
omnibus placeat, ut sive diaconus, sive presbyter, sive quis clericorum 


THE PROGRESS OF EPISCOPACY. 239 


hand which he could at any time apply to those who might 
become the objects of his displeasure. 


II. Results of the diocesan organization. 

1. It established the pre-eminence of the bishop in the 
city over the neighboring churches. 

2. It was a virtual disfranchisement of the laity. 

It removed the checks and guards of a popular govern- 
ment against the exercise of arbitrary power. It invested 
the bishops with prerogatives, which can never be entrusted 
with safety to any man or body of men. “To revive Christ’s 
church is to expel the Antichrist of the priesthood, which, 
as it was foretold of him, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, 
showing himself that he is God, and to restore its disfran- 
chised members, the laity, to the discharge of their proper 
duties in it, and to the consciousness of their paramount 
importance.” 

3. The government was oppressive to the laity. It en- 
trusted to the bishop exclusively the right of ecclesiastical 
censure. 
ab episcopo suo communione fuerit privatus, et ad alterum perrexerit 
episcopum, et scierit ille ad quem confugit, eum ab episcopo suo fuisse . 
abjectum, non oportet ut ei communionem indulgeat. Quod si fecerit, 
sciat se convocatis episcopis causas esse dicturum. Universi dixerunt: 
Hoe statutum et pacem servabit, et concordiam custodiet.—c. 13 (16). 
This was one of the most celebrated councils of the age. It was com- 
posed of one hundred and sixty-six bishops convened both from the 
Eastern and Western churches, at the head of whom was the venerable 
Hosius, who, it would seem, proposed it as an expedient to preserve 
peace and harmony among the bishops.—Ei τις κληρικὸς ἢ Aatkdc 
ἀφωρισμένος ἦτοι ἅδεκτος, ἀπελϑὼν ἐν ἑτέρᾳ πόλει, δεχϑῇ ἄνευ γραμμάτων 
συστατικῶν, ἀφωριζέσϑω καὶ ὁ δεξάμενος καὶ ὁ δεχϑείς " εἰ δὲ ἀφωρισμένος 
ein, ἐπιτεινέσϑω αὐτῷ ὁ ἀφορισμὸς, ὡς ψευσαμένῳ καὶ ἀπατήσαντι τὴν ἐκκλη- 
σίαν τοῦ Veov.— Can. Apost. 12 (13), p. 2. Comp. the author’s Ancient 
Christianity, pp. 451-471. 

17 Christian Life, by Arnold, p. 52. 


240 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


This gave the bishops a dangerous control over the pri- 
vate members of the church. Under censure they had no 
redress, however unjustly it might have been inflicted, and 
could only be restored at the pleasure of their own diocesan.” 

4. It destroyed the independence of the clergy under the 
diocesan. 

The bishops soon found means to effect the complete sub- 
jection of the clergy to their control. They allowed them, 
in no instance, to travel into a neighboring province with- 
out a passport from the bishop. Much less could a presby- 
ter or deacon transfer himself from one church to another 
without the bishop’s consent. If any one should presume 
so to do, or if another should receive him who came without 
the bishop’s consent, the consequence was expulsion from 
office.” 

5. It entrusted the bishop with a dangerous prerogative, 
by giving him the control of the revenues of the church. 

The goods and property of the church, its revenues and 
receipts of every kind, were submitted to the disposal of the 
bishop.” 


18 Smyth’s Eccl. Republicanism, pp. 81, 82. 

19 Ki τίς πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος ἢ ὅλως τοῦ καταλόγου TOV κληρικῶν 
ἀπολείψας τὴν ἑαυτοῦ παροικίαν εἰς ἐτέραν ἀπέλϑῃ, καὶ παντελῶς μεταστὰς 
διατρίβῃ ἐν ἄλλῃ παροικίᾳ παρὰ γνώμην τοῦ ἰδίου ἐπισκόπου: τοῦτον 
κελεύομεν μηκέτι λειτουργεῖν, μάλιστα εἰ προσκαλουμένου οὐτὸν τοῦ ἐπισ- 
που αὐτοῦ ἐπανελϑεῖν οὐχ ὑπήκουσεν ἐπιμένων τῇ ἀταξίᾳ: ὡς λαϊκὸς μέντοί 
ἐκεῖσε Kotvwveitw.—A post. OCan., 14 (15), Bruns, p. 3. Comp. also, 
Conic. Antioch, c. 3. Laodic. c. 42. Arelat. 1. ο. 21. Chalced. ec. 20. 
Nice, c. 16. Carthag. 1, c. 5. Sardic. 16, 18, etc., ete. Siegel, 11, 
S. 462. 

20 ἸΠάντων τῶν ἐκκλησιαστικῶν πραγμάτων ὁ ἐπίσκοπος ἐχέτω τὴν φρον- 
τίδα καὶ διοικείτω αὐτὰ, ὡς ϑεοῦ ἐφορῶντος" μὴ ἐξεῖναι δὲ αὐτῷ σφετερίζεσ- 
Sar τι ἐξ αὐτῶν ἢ συγγένεσιν ἰδίοις τὰ τοῦ ϑεοῦ. αρίζεσϑαι' εἰ δὲ πένητες 
elev, ἐπιχορηγείτω ὡς πένησιν, ἀλλὰ μὴ προφάσει τούτον τὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας 
ἀπεμπ λείτω. Ἱροστάττομεν ἐπίσκοπον ἐξουσίαν ἔχειυ τῶν τῆς ἐκκλησίας 


THE PROGRESS OF EPISCOPACY. QAI 


The council of Antioch, A. D. 341, gave the bishops en- 
tire control over all the property of the church; and the 
synod of Gangra, A. D. 362-370, pronounced their solemn 
anathema upon any one who should either give or receive 
any of the goods of the church without authority from the 
bishop.” The oppressive results of this system are clearly 
and concisely stated by Siegel,” and more at length by 
Planck.” Without the guidance of another, however, they 
must be obvious to any one. 

6. It gave the bishop unjust power over the clergy, by 
allowing him to inflict upon them ecclesiastical censure. 

It gave the bishop, who inflicted the penalty, the sole 
right of removing it at pleasure. This crafty policy had 
more influence than any other in completing the subjuga- 
tion of the clergy, and settling upon the churches the 
government of an oppressive ecclesiastical aristocracy. The 


πραγμάτων" ei yap τὰς τιμίας τῶν ἀνϑρώπων ψυχὰς αὐτῷ πιστευτέον, 
πολλῷ ἄν μᾶλλον δέοι ἐπὶ τῶν χρημάτων ἐντέλλεσϑαι, ὥστε κατὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ 
ἐξουσίαν πάντα διοικεῖσϑαι, καὶ τοῖς δεομένοις διὰ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων καὶ 
διακόνων ἐπιχορηγεῖσϑαι μετὰ φόβου τοῦ ϑεοῦ κοὶ πάσης εὐλαβείας" μετα- 
λαμβάνειν δὲ καὶ αὐτὸν τῶν δεόντων (εἴγε δέοιτο) εἷς τὰς ἀναγκαίας αὐτῷ 
χρείας καὶ τῶν ἐπιξενουμένων ἀδελφῶν, ὡς κατὰ μηδένα τρόπον αὐτού 
ὑστερεῖσϑαι' ὁ γὰρ νόμος τοῦ ϑεοῦ διειτάξατο, τοὺς τῷ ϑυσιαστηρίῳ ὑπηρε- 
τοῦντας ἐκ τοῦ ϑυσιαστηρίου τρέφεσϑαι ἐπείπερ οὐδὲ στρατιῶταί ποτε ἰδίοις 
ὀψωνίοις ὅπλα κατὰ πολεμίων ἐπιφέρονται.--- Αγροεί. Can. 37 (39), 40 
(41), Bruns, pp. 6,7. First claimed by Cyprian; resisted by presby- 
ters. See Apost. Const. p. 369-69. 

2 Hi tic καρποφορίας ἐκκλησιαςτικὰς ἐθέλοι λαμβάνειν ἤ διδόναι ἔξω τῆς 
ἐκκλσσίας παρὰ γνώμην τοῦ ἐπισκόπου ἢ τοῦ ἐγκεχειρισμένου τὰ τοιαῦτα, 
καὶ μὴ μετὰ γνώμης αὐτοῦ ἐϑέλοι πράττειν, ἀνάϑεμα ἔστω. Ei τις διδοῖ ἢ 
λαμβάνοι καρποφορίαν παρεκτὸς τοῦ ἐπισκόπου ἢ τοῦ ἐπιτεταγμένου εἰς 
οἰκονομίαν εὐποὶίας, καὶ ὁ διδοὺς καὶ ὁ λαμβάνων ἀνάϑεμα ἔστω.--- (πο. 
Gang. 7, 8, Bruns, p. 108. Comp. Cone. Aurel. 1, c. 14, 15. 

22 Handbuch, 11, 8. 463. 

23 Gesell. Verfass. I. S. 381-402. Comp. Locke, etc. p. 280. 

21 L 


249, THE PRIMITIVE: CHURCH. 


right of appeal to the civil authority was also strictly 
denied.™ 

7. It was the occasion, in a great degree, of breaking 
down the good order and discipline of the church, which 
had hitherto prevailed. 

“The bishops claimed to have the highest authority, and 
acted accordingly in the government of the church. The 
presbyters refused to acknowledge this claim, and strove to 
make themselves independent of the bishops. This strife 
between the presbyterian and episcopal systems is of the 
utmost importance in developing the moral and religious 
state of the church in the third century. Many presbyters 
made use of their influence to disturb the order and disci- 
pline of the church. This strife was, in every way, injurious 
to its order and discipline.” * 


THE METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT. 


This was not the production of a day, but the result of a 
gradual modification of the diocesan government, by a 
further concentration of episcopal power, and the extension 
of its influence over a wider range of territory. These 
modifications were not altogether the same in every coun- 
try, nor were they simultaneously effected. The metropoli- 
tan government was developed in the Eastern church as 
early as the first half of the fourth century. The Council 
of Nice, A. 10. 525, c. 4, ordered that the “ bishops should in 
the provinces be subject to the metropolitan ;” and again, 
6. 6, it ordered “that the bishop of Alexandrja should rule 
over those of the adjacent provinces in conformity to es- 
tablished usage, and that no one should be appointed bishop 


24 Cone. Antioch, Can. 11. 
9° Neander, Allgem. Kirch. Gesch. I. S. 329, 330, 2d ed. 


THE PROGRESS OF ἘΡΙΒΟΟΡΑΟΥ. 243 


without the consent of the metropolitan.” The Council of 
Antioch, A. D. 341, α. 9, defined and established fully the 
rights of the metropolitan. 

The establishment of a hierarchy in the West followed at 
a period somewhat later. 

The capital of the province was not, of necessity, the seat 
of the metropolitan see, nor did the limits of a metropolitan 
jurisdiction uniformly coincide with those of a province. 
This distinction was conferred upon Jerusalem, Antioch, 
Caesarea, Alexandria, Ephesus, Corinth, Rome, Carthage, 
Lyons and others. Thus in time the metropolitan govern- 
ment, in place of the diocesan, was settled upon the whole 
Christian church. 


I. Means of its establishment. 

The supremacy which the bishops had already acquired, 
together with the rapid extension of Christianity, soon in- 
troduced this organization as a new form of the hierarchy. 
It was the prerogative of the metropolitan to summon the 
meetings of the synod, to make the introductory address, to 
preside over their deliberations and to publish the results 
of their council. The provincial bishops soon became 
emulous of receiving consecration at the hands of the 
metropolitan; and, accordingly, he began, as opportunity 
presented, to assume to himself the exclusive right of or- 
daining. It early became a canonical rule that the metro- 
politan should ratify the ordinary acts of the provincial 
bishops, which gave him power to reject all who were ob- 
noxious to him.” About the beginning of the fourth cen- 
tury, the prerogatives of the metropolitan began to be the 
subject of statute regulations.” 

26 Com. Ziegler’s Versuch. 8. 69-71. 

27 The development of the metropolitan system is briefly stated by 


Siegel, Handbuch, 11, 8. 264, seq.: and more at length, by Planck, 
Gesell. Verfass. I. S. 572-598, and by Ziegler, S. 61-164. 


244 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


We have now reached that period in the history of the 
church, in which its government appears in almost total 
contrast with that of its apostolical and primitive organiza- 
tion. The supreme authority is no longer vested in the 
church collectively, under a popular administration, but in 
an ecclesiastical aristocracy; and the government of the 
church is thus entrusted to a clerical hierarchy, who both 
make and administer the laws, without the intervention of 
the people. This, then, is a proper point at which to pause 
and contemplate the practical results of the system of eccle- 
siastical polity which has taken the place of that which the 
church originally received at the hands of the apostles. 


II. Results of this system may be contemplated in their 
relations to the laity, to the clergy and to the general in- 
terests of religion. 

1. In regard to the laity. 

a) It destroyed the sovereignty of the church as a col- 
lective body, by denying to them the right to enact their 
own laws. 

“The idea that the church meant the clergy—the hier- 
archy exclusively—constituted the first, the fundamental 
apostasy.”* The law-making power was entirely in the 
hands of the bishops, who gave laws to the people under 
the pretended sanction of divine authority, and executed 
them at ther own pleasure. ‘‘ From the spirit of most of 
the ordinances which these new law-givers made for the 
laity, this much, at least, is apparent in the execution of 
them, that they were directly designed or adapted to bring 
the people yet more under the yoke of the clergy, or to give 
them opportunity more frequently and firmly to exercise 
their power.” ” 

8 Coleridge, Aids to Reflection. Comp. Bunsen’s Hippolitus, Vol. 
II. p. 11-18; III. p. 246, 1st edition Planck Gesell. I. S. 285. 

9 Gesell. Verfass. I. S. 452, 453. 


THE PROGRESS OF EPISCOPACY. yon ts: 


(b) It exposed the laity to unjust exactions by uniting 
the legislative and executive branches of government. 

The clergy enjoyed many privileges, by which, on the 
one hand, they were in a measure shielded from the opera- 
tion of the law, and, on the other, were entrusted with civil 
and judicial authority over the laity. Three particulars 
are stated by Planck : 

1. In certain civil cases they exercised a direct jurisdic- 
tion over the laity. 

2. The state submitted entirely to them the adjudication 
of all offences of the laity of a religious nature. 

3. Certain other cases, styled ecclesiastical, causae ecclesi- 
asticae, were tried before them exclusively. 

The practical influences of this arrangement, and its 
effects upon the clergy and the laity, are detailed by the 
same author, to whom we must refer the reader.” 

(c) The laity were separated injuriously from the control 
of the revenues which they contributed for the maintenance 
of the government of the church and for charitable pur- 
poses. 

All measures of this nature, instead of originating with 
the people, as in all popular governments, began and ended 
with the priesthood.** The wealth of the laity was now 
made to flow in streams into the church. New expedients 
were devised to draw money from them.” Constantine 
himself also contributed large sums to enrich the coffers of 

30 Gesell. Verfass. I. 8.308, seq. 

81 Cone. Gan. Can. 7,8. Bracar.11,¢.7. The above canons clearly 
indicate the unjust and oppressive operation of this system. 

32 Tt was a law of the church in the fourth century that the laity 
should every Sabbath partake of the sacrament; the effect. of which 
law was to augment the revenues of the church, each communicant 
being required to bring his offering to the altar. Afterward, when 
this custom was discontinued, the offering was still claimed,— Cong, 
Agath. A. D. 585, ¢. 4. 


21 # 


240 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


the church, which he also authorized, A. D. 321, to inherit 
property by will.” This permission opened new sources of 
wealth to the clergy, while it presented equal incentives to 
their cupidity. With what address they employed their 
newly-acquired rights is apparent from the fact stated by 
Planck, “that in the space of ten years every man, at his 
decease, left a legacy to the church; and within fifty years 
the clergy in the several provinces, under the color of the 
church, held in their possession one tenth part of the entire 
property of the province. By the-end of the fourth century 
the emperors themselves were obliged to interpose to check 
the accumulation of these immense revenues: a measure 
which Jerome said he could not regret, but he could only 
regret that his brethren had made it necessary.” * 

(d) The system in question was a violation of the rights 
of the laity to choose their religious teachers. 

The clergy were appointed by the bishop, and the bishop, 
again, was elected by the clergy. The intervention of the 
people was often a mere form, and even the form itself was 
finally discontinued. 

(6) The tendency of this form of government was to ren- 
der the laity indifferent to the religious interests of the 
church. 

It left them no part in administering the concerns of the 
church, and they would do little for the promotion of its 
purity. If scandals abounded, it belonged not to them to 
remove them. If a case of discipline occurred, its manage- 
ment began and ended with the clergy. 

(f) The tendency of the system was to sunder the pri- 
vate members of the church from each other and to inter- 
fere with their mutual fellowship and watchfulness. 


33 Cod. Theod. 4, 16; Tit. 2, c. 4; Euseb. Lib. 10, 6; Sozomen, Lib. 
ic. 8s Lab. Ὁ Ὁ: 
34 Gesell. Verfass. 1. 5. 281. Comp. Pertsch, Kirch. Hist. sec. 11, e. 9. 


THE PROGRESS OF EPISCOPACY. 247 


They were received by the clergy to the ordinances of the 
church, rather than to the fellowship, the confidence and 
affection of brethren, one with them in heart, in sympathy 
and Christian love. 

This mutual estrangement and the general neglect of 
Christian watchfulness and discipline which dishonored the 
church at this time are forcibly exhibited by Eusebius, who 
lived in the age now under consideration. He says: “After 
Christianity, through too much liberty, was changed into 
laxness and sloth, then began men to envy and revile one 
another, and to wound one another as if with arms and 
spears in actual warfare. Then bishop arose against bishop 
and church against church. Great tumult prevailed, and 
hypocrisy and dissimulation were carried to the highest 
pitch. And then began the divine vengeance, as is usual, 
to visit us; and such was the condition of the church that 
the most part came not freely together.” ® 

“ As things now are,” says Chrysostom, “ all is corrupted 
and lost. The church is little else than a stall for cattle or 
a fold for camels and asses; and when I go out in search 
of sheep I find none. All are rampant and refractory as 
herds of horses and wild asses; everything is filled with 
their abounding corruptions.” ** Similar sentiments occur 
abundantly in the writers of the third and fourth centuries 
and in the ages following. 

(9) This system was a gross infringement on the right of 
private judgment in religion. 

It was a law strictly enforced that every layman should 
believe blindly, without inquiry, without evidence, all that 
the church, represented by the bishops in synod, should 
prescribe. The evidence he was not competent to examine. 
Here is the origin of that papal policy which denies the 


35 Eccl. Hist. 8, ο. 1. 
86 Chrysostom, Hom. 89, in Math. Vol. VII. p. 890. 


248 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


Bible to the laity, and the pattern of that “prudent reserve” 
which Puseyism inculcates in preaching the gospel to the 
common people. The exercise of one’s private judgment, 
leading him to dissent from the prescribed articles, was not 
only regarded as a heinous sin, but as a violation of the law 
of the state, punishable with severe penalties.” 

“In endeavoring by the secular arm to compel all the 
Christians to entertain the same speculative opinions on the 
questions then debated, the sovereigns at once turned free 
discussions into controversy and strife. They inflamed in- 
stead of extinguishing party spirit. They formally divided 
the church into sects. They entailed the disputes of their 
own times as an inheritance of sorrow to posterity, and wrote 
INTOLERANCE over the portal of the house of God.” * 

2. Results of the metropolitan government upon the 
clergy. | 

The clergy, under this system, appear in many respects 
in strong contrast with the ministry of the apostolic and 
primitive churches. 

(a) The increase of the churches would, of necessity, re- 
quire a corresponding increase in the number of its minis- 
ters. EXven in the second century there were Christian 
churches which had twenty or thirty presbyters, and some- 
times as many deacons.” But we have now several entirely 
new classes of officers in the church, sub-deacons, acolytes, 
readers, exorcists, door-keepers, etc. To these were subse- 
quently added many others, advocates, σύνδιχοι, apocrisiarit, 
cimeliarchs, custodes, mansionarii, notari, ovconomor, syncelli, 
ete., ete. The specific duties of these several officers are 


37 Sozomen, Eccl. Hist. Lib. 7, c. 9. Codex Theodosian, L. 16, tit. 
3, 1.2. Justinian Novell, 6,42. Arnold, Wahre Abbildung, e. 8. 

38 Rey. Thomas Hardy, cited in Dr. Brown’s Law of Christ respect- 
ing Civil Obedience, p. 512. 

39 The author’s Ancient Christianity, Art. Deacons, p. 163. 


THE PROGRESS OF EPISCOPACY. 249 


briefly stated in the author’s Ancient Christianity,” and 
more at length in the larger works of Bingham, Augusti, 
Siegel and Bohmer. 

(b) The distinctions between the different orders of the 
clergy are drawn with great care, and cautiously guarded. 

The councils of the period abound with canons defining 
the boundaries of the several grades of the clergy. Gregory 
Nazianzen, A. D. 360, in view of these ambitious conten- 
tions, exclaims, “ How I wish there had been no precedence, 
no priority of place, no authoritative dictatorship, that we 
might be distinguished by virtue alone. But now this right 
hand, and left hand, and middle, and higher and lower, this 
going before and going in company, have produced to us 
much unprofitable affliction—brought many into a snare, 
and thrust them out among the herd of the goats; and 
these, not only of the inferior order, but even of the shep- 
herds, who, though masters in Israel, have not known these 
things.’ “I am worn out with contending against the 
envy of the holy bishops; disturbing the public peace by 
their contentions, and subordinating the Christian faith to 
their own private interesis.” .... “If I must write the 
whole truth, I am determined to absent myself from all as- 
semblies of the bishops; for I have never seen a happy 
result of any councils, nor any that did not occasion an in- 
crease of evils, rather than a reformation of them, by reason 
of these pertinacious contentions, and this vehement thirst 
for power, such as no words can express.” 

(c) The clergy manifest a strong party feeling. 

They have become one party, and the church another ; 
each with their separate interests. And these, too often, 
are contrary, the one to the other. This spirit manifested 
itself particularly in their synods, where the bishops sought 

40 Chapter IX. pp. 179-190. 


41 Orat. 28, Vol. I. p. 484. 
Ls 


250 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


to depress as much as possible the other orders of the clergy. 
For proof of this, reference may be had to the councils of 
Elvira, Neocaesarea and Nice. 

“They (the bishops) had the means of carrying any 
measure for their own advantage; and while they continued 
united, it was not easy for a whole church, even, and much 
less for a single individual of the clergy, or of the laity, 
to oppose them. Even if a whole church came into collision 
with their bishop, they must submit to the decision of the pro- 
vincial synod, of the metropolitan, and also of his feliow-bish- 
ops. The danger was, that these all, and even the churches 
of the province, would agree in a coalition against the party 
who began the prosecution ; so that, in the end, they would 
be excluded from the bonds of Christian fellowship. Who 
can suppose that the bishops could be men, and not act, in 
such circumstances, for the interests of their order.” “ἢ 

(d) Strong temptations were presented to the lower orders 
of the clergy to become the sycophants of the higher for the 
promotion of their own interests. | 

“They flatter the rulers, they affectionately salute the 
influential, they carefully wait upon the rich; the glory of 
God they disregard; his worship they defile, religion they 
profane, Christian love they destroy. Their ambition is 
insatiable; they are ever striving after honor and fame. 
They aspire to be high in office; and, to accomplish this 
end, spare not to excite the worst of enmities among the best 
of friends.” This is said by a Roman bishop, of his own 

42 Planck, Gesell. Verfass. I. S. 179. Comp. p. 129. Ziegler’s. 
Versuch. ete. S. 56, 57. Ep. Philagrio, 65, al. 59, p. 823, and Ep. 
Procopio, 55, al. 42, p. 814. Conc. Antioch. 6. 1, Synod. Gangr. ὁ. 7, 
8. Cone. Chalcedon, ec. 8. Conc. Const. ὁ. 6. Comp. Cone. Laodie, 
c. 20, 42, 56. 

48 Leo VII. Epist. ad Episc. Bavar. ap. Aventinum et in Catal. Test. 
Vet. p. 209. Cited in Arnold’s Wahre Abbildung, 8. 919. Euseb. 
WEL. 4. 


THE PROGRESS OF EPISCOPACY. 251 


clergy; and Gregory Nazianzen, at an earlier period, 
charges them with flattering the great and crouching to 
them in every way. “But when they had others in their 
power, then were they more savage than lions.” At an- 
other time he describes them as “seducing flatterers, flexible 
as a bough, savage as a lion to the weak, cringing as a dog 
to the powerful; who knock at the doors, not of the learned, 
but of the great, and value highest, not what is useful, but 
what is pleasing to others.” * 

“Wherever,” says Robert Hall, “religion is established 
by law, with splendid emoluments and dignities annexed to 
its profession, the clergy, who are candidates for these dis- 
tinctions, will ever be prone to exalt the prerogative, not 
only in order to strengthen the arm on which they lean, but 
that they may the more successfully ingratiate themselves 
in the favor of the prince, by flattering those ambitious 
views and passions which are too readily entertained by 
persons possessed of supreme power. The boasted alliance 
between church and state, on which so many encomiums 
have been lavished, seems to have been little more than a 
compact between the priest and the magistrate to betray 
the liberties of mankind, both civil and religious. To this 
the clergy on their part, at least, have continued steady, 
shunning inquiry, fearful of change, blind to the corruptions 
of government, skillful to discern the signs of the times, and 
eager to improve every opportunity and to employ all their 
art and eloquence to extend the prerogative and smoothe the 
approaches of arbitrary power.” 

(e) The clergy were entrusted with the exercise of both 
ecclesiastical and civil powers. 

Constantine gave to the bishops the right of deciding in 

* Objurgat. in Cler. Cited in Wahre Abbildung, S. 918. 


*® De Episcopis, p. 1031. Ed. Basil. 1571. Ed. Colon. 1590. Vol. 
II. p. 304. 


F752 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


secular matters, making them the highest court of judica- 
ture, and ordering that their judgment should be final and 
decisive as that of the emperor himself, whose officers 
were accordingly required to execute these decisions.” 

With this union of church and state under Constantine, 
the way was opened for the exercise of clerical influence in 
many ways over the secular interests of both. Siegel has 
mentioned one crafty device, which sufficiently discovers 
the aspirations of prelatical ambition after political power. 
This was the rule which required “the subordinate clergy 
to obtain permission from the metropolitan to pay their 
visits to the emperor.” The design of this expedient was 
to overrule the appeals of the inferior clergy to Caesar, by 
hindering them in their approaches to him. In short, the 
policy of the bishops was to embarrass others as much as 
possible in making appeal to the civil authority, while they 
themselves employed it to accomplish their own party 
purposes. 

“Hundreds of cases to this effect occur in the history of 
the fourth and fifth centuries. And all this, as any one 
must see, was entirely natural, according to the ordinary 
course of things. When so often availing themselves of 
_ this right of appeal to the emperors as they did, could the 
bishops fail to remember that they could in this way not 
only serve the church, but promote also their own conve- 
nience and the furtherance of their designs?” * 

(f) A secular and mercenary spirit dishonored the clergy. 

So prevalent was this spirit among the clergy that the 
council of Eliberis, A. D. 305, saw reason to rebuke and 

46 Kpsitw tio τῶν ἄλλων δικαστῶν ὡσανεὶ παρὰ τοῦ βασιλέως ἐξ- 
ενεχϑείσαν. 

41 Siegel, Handbuch, I. p. 247. Socrat. E. Hist. b. 7, 7. Com. 
Valesius, in Euseb. De Vit. Const. Lib. 4, ο. 27. 

48 Planck, Gesell. Verfass. I. S. 269-271. Comp. 8S. 453, 454. Cone. 
Antioch, ec. 11, 12. 


THE PROGRESS OF EPISCOPACY. 253 


restrain it by requiring them, if they must engage in trade, 
to confine their operations to their own province. 

“The church that before by insensible degrees welked 
and impaired, now with large steps went down hill decay- 
ing; at this time Antichrist began first to put forth his 
horn, and that saying was common, that former times had 
wooden chalices and golden priests; but they, golden chal- 
ices and wooden priests. ‘Formerly,’ says Sulpitius, speak- 
ingsof these times, ‘martyrdom by glorious death was sought 
more greedily than now bishoprics by vile ambition are 
hunted after ; and in another place: ‘they gape after pos- 
sessions, they tend lands and livings, they hoard up their 
gold, they buy and sell; and if there be any that neither 
possess money nor traffic, what is worse, they sit still and 
accept gifts, and prostitute every endowment of grace, every 
holy thing, to venal purposes.’ Thus he concludes: ‘All 
things went to rack by the faction, willfulness and avarice 
of the bishops; and by this means God’s people and every 
good man were held in scorn and derision.’ ”’ * 

(g) The bishops learned to torture and pervert the lan- 
guage of Scripture to give importance to their order. 

From their reference to the Jewish priesthood sprang the 


49 Cone. Eliberis, c. 19. Comp. Cone. Aurel. 3, ο. 27. Basil the 
Great complains that some of the bishops administered ordination for 
hire, making even this ‘ 
tice which he justly condemns.— Ep. 53, Vol. III. p. 147. 

The bishop of Bangor, in Wales, has been reminded of his episcopal 
duty by a petition from fifty of the clergy of his diocese, who are 
shocked at the state of things there. It seems from their address that 
numbers of the clergy live entirely at their ease, do nothing, and get 
well paid for it. Others, again, neglect their own parishes to serve as 
curates to other rectors, and thus add to their income. Some of the 
best-endowed benefices absolutely neglect the people; while, in many 
cases, the services are held at hours when nobody can attend. 

5° Milton’s Prose Warks, Vol. I. p. 22. 

22 


“grace” an article of merchandise. <A prac- 


ret THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


conceit of the divine right of episcopacy, of the apostolical 
succession, and of the validity and necessity of episcopal 
ordination. On this topic another shall speak, who has 
written on the constitution of the church more at length 
and with greater ability than any other historian. After 
adverting to their reference to the Jewish priesthood, to the 
transfer of the names of that priesthood to the clergy of the 
Christian church, and to the analogies which were sought 
out between the chief priests of the temple and the bishops 
of the church, Planck proceeds to say: “It is easy to see, 
and was foreseen, what advantages they might gain if they 
could once bring this notion into circulation—that the bish- 
ops and presbyters were set apart not by the church, but by 
God himself ;°*' that they held their office and the rights of 
their office from God, and not from the church; that they 
were not the servants of the church, but ordained of God ἡ 
to be its overseers, and appointed by him to be the guard- 
ians of its sanctity; that the service of the ministry for this 
new religion must be performed altogether by them and by 
their body; and, therefore, that they must of necessity con- 
stitute themselves a distinct order and form a separate caste 
in the church; all this was clearly manifest to their minds, 
and accordingly they sought out with all diligence the anal- 
ogies from which all these consequences could so easily be 
drawn. 

“In view of the obvious advantages which the bishops 
would gain from the prevalence of such sentiments, one is 
not surprised that Cyprian sought so much to propagate 
them in his day. Having, therefore, so much interest in 
the promulgation of these sentiments, from which proceeded, 
as a necessary consequence, the divine right of their office, 
the bishops found means more fully to establish them by 


δ᾽ Tt was a favorite sentiment of Cyprian that God makes the priests. 
Deus qui sacerdotes facit —Fpist. 69, 52. 


THE PROGRESS OF EPISCOPACY. O55 


claiming to be the successors of the apostles. They accord- 
ingly began now for the first time to promulgate, with a 
specific intent, this doctrine of the apostolical succession. 
The bishops had, indeed, from the beginning of the second 
century,” appropriated to themselves the title of the succes- 
sors of the apostles, but it occurred to no one, and least of 
all to them, that they had of right inherited the authority 
of the apostles and were instated in all their rights. These 
claims, however, were not only put forth before the middle 
of the third century as an acknowledged right, but the bish- 
ops carefully availed themselves of the advantages resulting 
from an inheritance of the apostolical succession. 

“One of the advantages claimed was the exclusive right 
of ordination. This favorite doctrine has ever since held a 
conspicuous place among their rights in the church. In- 
deed, it has been the ruling sentiment of the episcopal hier- 
archy, the foundation of this entire theory of an ecclesiast- 
ical ministry. The church was taught to believe that the 
right in question was borrowed from the ancient Jews, and 
that the apostles, by means of it, had originally inducted 
bishops and presbyters into office.” It was instructed that 
the laying on of hands was not merely a symbolical rite, 
but that it must be regarded as a religious act, having in 
itself a certain efficacy by which the individual upon whom 
it had been rightly performed was not only invested with 


52 This author supposes the distinction between bishop and presby- 
ter to have prevailed from the beginning—a distinction, however, ap- 
propriately implying no official superiority. “The bishop perhaps 
regarded himself as somewhat different from a presbyter, but not at 
all superior to him. He thought himself more than a presbyter only 
inasmuch as he had more to do than a presbyter.”—Gesell. Verfass. 
Bd. LBs; 

53 Potestas Apostolis data est... et episcopis, qui eis vicaria ordi- 
natione successerunt.— Cyprian, Ep. 75, 


256 | THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


all the rights of the office, but was also rendered competent 
to impart to others the same clerical grace. In a word, a 
mysterious and supernatural power was ascribed to this lay- 
‘ing on of hands, by which the Holy Spirit was transmitted 
to the person who received ordination from them; just as 
the apostles, by the laying on of their hands, communicated 
the gift of working miracles, Acts viii. 17; x. 47. 

“When once the bishops had come to be regarded as the 
successors of the apostles, they could easily lay claim also to 
the prerogatives and gifts of the apostles. Hence the doc- 
trine that none but the bishops could administer a valid 
ordination; for they, by being constituted the successors of 
the apostles, had alone the power, by the laying on of the 
hands, to impart a similar gift, with ability to transmit it 
unimpaired to others. In order more deeply to impress the 
new doctrine upon the minds of the people, or to inspire 
them with a firmer belief in it, they took care also to ad- 
minister the rite of ordination with the appearance of greater 
formality and solemnity. This, in all probability, was the 
true reason for the custom of saying, in the laying on of 
the hands, Accipe Sanctum Spiritum, Receive the Holy 
Ghost ! 

“In the same connection came also the suggestion that it 
was important, not merely for the bishops, but for the pres- 
byters and deacons also, to receive ordination. They were 
accordingly ordained; and the great end designed by all 
these things would be accomplished—that of impressing more 
deeply upon the minds of the people that the clergy are a pecu- 


δὲ Cyprian at least admonished the deacons to remember that God 
appointed the apostles, 7. 6., the bishops, but the deacons were consti- 
tuted the ministers of the church by the apostles. Apostolos, id est 
episcopos Dominus elegit; diaconos autem apostoli sibi constituerunt 
ministros.— Ep. 9. 


THE PROGRESS OF EPISCOPACY. 257 


liar class of persons, set apart by God himself as a distinct or- 
der in the church.” ὅἢ 

(h) The clergy manifested an intolerant, persecuting 
spirit. 

It is the legitimate effect of such pretensions as have been 
specified in the foregoing article. Dissent from their doc- 
trines becomes a denial of God’s truth; disobedience to their 
authority, rebellion against God; and heresy, the most hein- 
ous of sins. Accordingly, the great strife now is to guard 
against the spread of heretical opinions. Many, according 
to Epiphanius, were expelled from the church for a single 
word or two, which might seem to be contrary to the faith.” 
The charges were frequently groundless, often contemptible; 
and so multifarious withal, that it might be difficult to say 
what in human conduct or belief has not been branded as 
heresy. For a priest to appear in worship without his sur- 
plice was heresy.” To fast on Saturday or Sunday, “her- 
esy, and a damnable thing.” * This zeal against heretics 
was quickened, also, by that avarice which seized upon their 
houses, their lands, their property of every description, and 
confiscated them for the benefit, ostensibly, of the church, 
but really as a gratuity to the pious zeal of their clerical 
persecutors.” 


53 Gesell. Verfass. I. S. 157-163. 

56 Epist. ad Johan. Hieros. Vol. II. Op. p. 814. The least deviation 
from the prescribed formularies and creeds of the church was heresy, 
according to the famous law of Arcadius, A. D. 395. Haeritici sunt 
qui vei levi argumento a judicio catholicae religionis et tramite detecti 
fuerint deviare.—Cod. Theodos. L. 16, tit. V. de Haeret. 6, 28. 

Under Elizabeth, ministers and women of high culture were thrust 
“into dangerous and loathsome jails, among the most facinorous and 
vile persons,” for not praying by the book. 

57 Apoph. Pat. apud Cotelerium, T. 1, Mon. Graec. p. 684. 

58 Nomo Canon, Gr. apud eundem, ec. 129. 

59 Cod. Theodos. L. 16, tit. 5, 6, 48, 52,57. A full statement of 


22 ὃ 


258 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


And yet, under this treatment, as might have been fore- 
seen, heresies came up into the church like the frogs of 
Egypt. Epiphanius, who, in the fourth century, wrote 
several books against heresies, announces no less than ezghty 
distinct kinds of heresy. But the most obnoxious feature of 
this rage against heresy is, that it often became only a per- 
secuting intolerance of the pious, whose religious life rebuked 
the godless ministry that was over them. “One may see,” 
says Jerome, “in most of the cities, bishops and presbyters, 
who, when#they perceive the laity to seek the society of the 
pious, and hospitably to entertain them, immediately become 
jealous, and murmur against them, lay them under bans, 
and thrust them out of the church; so that one can do no 
more than what the bishop or overseer does. But to live a 
virtuous life is sure to provoke the displeasure of these 
priests; so unmerciful are they toward these poor men, and 
seize them by the neck, as if they would draw them away 
from all that is good, and harass them with all manner of 
persecutions.” ἢ 

“Tt was a thing, of course, that all would strive for ad- 
mission into that order which was in the enjoyment of such 
wealth, and power, and distinction.”" This was the great 
evil of this whole system of church-government. Hine wl 
prima mali labes—hence, the source and fountain of that 
tide of corruption which came in upon the church like an 
overwhelming flood.” The instances that have already been 
mentioned, clearly indicate the degeneracy of the clergy, 
which appears more fully in the following particulars : 


these persecutions is given in Vol. VI. p. 118. Leipsic, 1743. So- 
crat. Eccl. Hist. Lib. 7, c. 7; ce. 29. Comp. Jerom. Comment in Ep. 
I. ad Tit. Lib. 2 in Ezech. c. 34, Vol. 111. p. 943. 

6° Comment. in Epist. 1 ad Tit. 

6 Gesell. Verfass. I. 332. 

6 Comp. Mosheim, De Rebus Christ., Saec. III. 2 28. 


THE PROGRESS OF EPISCOPACY. 259 


(a) Their pride, their haughty, supercilious and ostenta- 
tious bearing. 

Every effort was made to exalt the dignity of the bishops. 
They assumed the titles of priests, high-priests, apostles, 
successors of the apostles; their highness, their excellence, 
their worthiness, their reverence, the enthroned, the height 
of the highest dignity, the culminating point of pontifical 
glory ;—these were the terms of base adulation employed to 
set forth the dignity of these ministers of Christ,” supported 
by presbyters on either hand, while the deacons stood 
lightly dressed and girded high as nimble servitors to do 
the bishop’s bidding. They had separate seats and princely 
thrones in the church. All rose to do them reverence as 
they came in, and stood until the bishops were seated, and 
often the people were required to stand in the presence of the 
bishops.” They were decked out in gorgeous apparel, aud 


63 Pertsch, Can. Recht. 49. More at length, in his Kirch, Hist. 
Saec. II. c. 3, 2 15, 16, 18. 

64 Apost. Const. II. c. 57. 

65 The following canon of the Council of Macon, A. D. 581, dictated, 
as they gravely tell us, by the Holy Spirit, is sufficient to illustrate 
the artifices of this kind to secure the respect of the people: Et quia 
ordinationi sacerdotum annuente deo congruit de omnibus disponere et 
causis singulis honestum terminum dare; ut per hos reverentissimos 
canones et praeteritorum canonum viror ac florida germina maturis 
fructibus enitescant, statuimus ut si quis saecularium quempiam cleri- 
corum honoratorum in itinere obviam habuerit, usque ad inferiorem 
gradum honoris veneranter sicut condecet Christianum illi colla sub- 
dat, per cujus officia et obsequia fidelissima christianitatis jura pro- 
meruit. Et si quidem ille saecularis equo vehitur clericusque simili- 
ter, saecularum galerum de capite auferat et clerico sincerae saluta- 
tionis munus adhibeat. Si vero clericus pedes graditur et saecularis 
vehitur equo sublimis, illico ad terram defluat et debitum honorem 
praedicto clerico sincerae caritatis exhibeat, ut deus, qui vera caritas 
est, in utrisque laetetur, et dilectioni suae utrumque adsciscat. Qui 
vero haec quae spiritu sancto dictante sancita sunt transgredi voluerit, 


200 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


even suspended sacred relics from their shoulders, to impress 
the multitude with a more profound reverence for their 
order. Even Origen, A. D. 253, complains that there are, 
especially in the larger cities, overseers of the people of 
God, who seek to outdo the pomp of heathen potentates, 
surrounding themselves, like the emperors, with a body- 
guard and making themselves terrible and inaccessible to 
the poor. 

(6) Their ignorance and incompetence rightly to dis- 
charge the duties of their office. 

By favoritism, intrigue and cunning many found their 
way into office who were wholly unqualified for it; and the 
church was afflicted with an incompetent and unworthy 
ministry.“ While mere boys, they were sometimes invested 
with the clerical office, so that the fourth council of Tole- 
tum, A. D. 633, by solemn enactment, provides for their 
education and training for their duties.* “No physician,” 
says Gregory Nazianzen, A. D. 370, “finds employment 
until he has acquainted himself with the nature of diseases ; 
no painter until he has learned to mix colors, and acquired 
skill in the use of the pencil. But a bishop is easily found. 
No preparation is requisite for his office. In a single day 
we make one a priest, and exhort him to be wise and 
learned, while he knows nothing; and brings no needful 
qualification for his office but a desire to be a bishop.” 
ab eccleciae quam in suis ministris dehonorat, quamdiu episcopus il- 
lius ecclesiae voluerit suspendatur.—C. 15, Bruns, Vol. IT. p. 254. The 
- gradations of rank which were observed with so much precision were 


made subservient to the same end, and indicate the same spirit. Comp. 
Planck, I. p. 858-368. 

66 Cone. Bracar. 3, c. 5. &7 Cone. Tol. 4, ο. 19. 

68 Nos, et divinae legis, et conciliorum praecepti immemores in- 
fantes et pueros, levitas facimus ante legitimam aetatam ante experien- 
tiam vitae.—Cone. Tol. 4, c. 20. Comp. Cone. Narbon. e. 11. 

6 Orat. 20, De Basil. Ed. Colon. 1590, p. 338, 


THE PROGRESS OF EPISCOPACY. 261 


They are teachers, while yet they have to learn the rudi- 
ments of religion. Yesterday, impenitent, irreligious; and 
to-day, priests; old in vice; in knowledge young.”” “They 
are, in their ministry, dull; in evil-speaking, active; in 
study, much at leisure; in seductions, busy; in love, cold; 
in factions, powerful; in hatred and enmity, constant; in 
doctrine, wavering. They profess to govern the church, 
but have need themselves to be governed by others.” 

(6) The total neglect of Christian discipline, and the 
general corruption of the church, were the necessary conse- 
quences of a secular ministry. 

“Formerly, the church of Christ was distinguished from 
the world by her piety. Then, the walk of all or of most 
Christians was holy, unlike that of the irreligious. But 
now are Christians as base, and, if possible, even worse than 
heretics and heathens.” “How unlike themselves are 
Christians now!” says Salvianus, A. D. 460. “ How fallen 
from what they once were! when we might rejoice, and ac- 
count the church as quite pure, if it had only as many good 
as bad men init. But it is hard and sad to say, that the 
church, which ought, in all things, to be well pleasing to 
God, does little else than provoke his displeasures.”’”* This 
is but a faint sketch of his complaint. Much more to the 
same effect is said by this writer, and confirmed by others, 
which we gladly pass in silence. Enough of this sad tale 
of the degeneracy of the church, of which the half has not 
been told. “ No language,” says Chrysostom, “ can describe 


70 Orat. 21. In Laud. Anthanas, p. 378. 

7 Sidonius Apollinaris, A.D. 486, Lib. 7, Ep. 9. Biblioth. Vet. 
Pat. VI. p, 1112. Comp. Mosheim, De Rebus Christ., Saec. III. 
ᾧ 26. 

” Comp. Chrysostom Hom. 32, ὃ 7, in Math. 36, 2 5, on 1 Cor. 

Lib. 6, De Gub. Dei in Biblioth. Pat. Vet. Vol. VIII. p. 362, 


seq. 


262 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


the angry contentions of Christians, and the corruption of 
morals that prevailed, from the time of Constantine to that 
of Theodosius.” “ 

Of grosser enormities we forbear to speak. Much that is 
recorded both of the clergy and the people, in the period 
now under consideration, cannot with propriety be trans- 
ferred to these pages. Suffice it to say, there is evidence 
sufficient to show that a shocking degeneracy of morals per- 
vaded all classes of society. It began, confessedly, with 
the clergy—in their worldliness and irreligion, their neglect 
of duty, their departure from the faith, and corrupt ex- 
ample.” From the time of Constantine, the tide of corrup- 
tion, which had begun to set in upon the church, became 
deep and strong, and continued to rise and swell until it 
wellnigh overwhelmed her. There were still examples, 
indeed, of men high in office in the church, who nobly 
strove to turn back this flood of iniquity; but they too fre- 
quently strove in vain, as their lamentations over her 
degeneracy plainly show. 

Wearied, however, with the oppressive hand of prelatical 
power that was upon her, and sickened at the sight of the 
ungodliness which had come up into the church, and sat 
enthroned in her high places, the pure spirit of piety with- 
drew, in silent sadness, to the cloistered cell, drew the cur- 
tains and reposed in her secret recesses through the long 
night of darkness that settled upon the world. 

The object of the Christian emperors was to bring all 
their subjects to embrace Christianity by making a pro- 
fessed faith in Christ the passport to favor and to power. 
The consequence was, that multitudes pressed up to the 


™ Hom. 49, in Math. p. 202. Opus imperfectum. 

Chrysostom expressly says, that they were the cause of this de- 
generacy of the laity. In Math. 23. Comp. also, Catal. Test. Verit. 
Deli. 


THE PROGRESS OF EPISCOPACY. 263 


altar of the Lord, eager to be invested with the robes and 
the office of the Christian ministry, who had nothing of its 
spirit.” 

Such was the wayward policy, the fatal mistake of the 
first Christian emperors. Such were its disastrous results. 
My kingdom, saith Christ, is not of this world. Christian- 
ity, though mingling freely in the affairs of men, like its 
great Author, works its miracles of mercy and of grace by 
powers that are hidden and divine. It stoops to no carnal 
policy, no state chicanery, no corrupt alliances; while, like 
an angel of mercy, it goes through the earth, for the healing 
of the nations. To borrow the profound thoughts and 
beautiful language of Robert Hall: “Christianity will 
civilize, it is true; but it is only when it is allowed to de- 
velop the energies by which it sanctifies. Christianity will 
inconceivably ameliorate the condition of being. Who 
doubts it? Its universal prevalence, not in name, but in 
reality, will convert this world into a semi-paradisaical 
state; but it is only while it is permitted to prepare its in- 
habitants for a better. Let her be urged to forget her 
celestial origin and’ destiny—to forget that she came from 
God, and returns to God; and, whether employed by the 
artful and enterprising as the instrument of establishing a 
spiritual empire and dominion over mankind, or by the 
philanthropist as the means of promoting their civilization 
and improvement—she resents the foul indignity, claps her 
wings and takes her flight, leaving nothing but a base and 
sanctimonious hypocrisy in her room.” " 


76 Comp. Sermon by Thomas Hardy, D.D. Cited in Dr. Brown’s 
Law of Christ, pp. 511, 512. 
77 Address to Eustace Carey. 


204 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


THE PATRIARCHAL GOVERNMENT. 


This was only a farther concentration of ecclesiastical 
power, another stage in the process of centralization, which 
was fast bringing the church under the absolute despotism 
of the papacy. Man naturally aspires to the exercise of 
arbitrary power; or, if he must divide his authority with 
others, he seeks to make that number as small as possible.” 

In the course of the period from the fourth to the sixth 
century, arose four great ecclesiastical divisions, whose 
primates bore the title of patriarch. These were Rome, 
Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch. Few topics of 
antiquity have been the subject of so much controversy as 
that relating to the patriarchal system, as may be seen in 
the works of Salmasius, Petavius, Sismondi, Scheelstrate, 
Richter and others. Suffice it to say, however, that the 
Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451, established five patri- 
archates. The Council of Nice, A. D. 325, c. 6, 7, of Con- 
stantinople I, A. D. 381, ὁ. 2,5, and of Ephesus, A. D. 
431, act. 7, had already conferred the distinction without 
the title. The incumbents of these episcopal sees were 
already invested with civil powers. Theodosius the Great 
conferred upon Constantinople the second rank, a measure 
greatly displeasing to Rome, and against which Alexandria 
and Antioch uniformly protested. Jerusalem had the honor 
and dignity of a patriarchate, but not the rights and 
privileges.” 

78 Comp. Planck, Gesell. Verfass. I. 5. 598-624. Ziegler’s Ver- 
such. ete. 164-365. 

79 Hence the Romans were accustomed to say, Patriarchae in eccle- 
sia primitus fuere, tres per se et ex natura sua—Romanus, Alexan- 
drinus et Antiochenus; duo per accidens, Constantinopolitanus et 
Hierosolymitanus. Comp. Justinia. Nov. Constit. 123. Schroeckh, 


Kirch. Gesch. ΤῊ]. 17, 8. 45, 46. Comp. Art. Patriarch, in the works 
of Augusti, Siegel, Rheinwald, W. Bohmer, etc. 


THE PROGRESS OF EPISCOPACY. 265 


The aspirations of prelatical ambition after sole and su- 
preme power are sufficiently manifest in that bitter contest, 
which was so long maintained by the primates of Rome and 
Constantinople, for the title of universal patriarch or head 
of the church universal.” Great political events finally 
decided this controversy in the course of the fifth and sixth 
centuries in the West, and in the East in the seventh cen- 
tury, in favor of the church of Rome. This decision resulted 
in the supremacy of the pope and the establishment of the 
papal system. 


THE PAPAL GOVERNMENT. 


This was the last refinement of cunning and self-aggran- 
dizement ; the culminating point of ecclesiastical usurpation, 
toward which the government of the church under the epis- 
copal hierarchy had been for several centuries approaching. 
It was an eeclesiastical monarchy, a spiritual despotism, 
which completed the overthrow of the authority of individual 
churches as sovereign and independent bodies. 

The bishop of Rome began his splendid career with the 
overthrow of the emperor’s authority in Italy. The de- 
cline of the Eastern empire, the famous war respecting 
image-worship and other events, political and ecclesiastical, 
favored the designs of the Pope of Rome until he proudly 
proclaimed himself “the successor of St. Peter, set up by 
God to govern not only the church, but the whole world.” 
So that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing 
himself that he is God. 

Thus, as we have seen, ecclesiastical history introduces 
first to our notice single independent churches; then, 
churches having several dependent branches; then, diocesan 

%0 Tlarpidpyoc τῆς οἰκουμένης, episcopus oecumenicus, uniyersalis 
ecclesiae papa, ete. 

23 M 


266 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


churches; then, metropolitan or provincial churches ; and 
then, national churches attempered to the civil power. In 
the end, we behold two great divisions of ecclesiastical em- 
pire, the Eastern and the Western, now darkly intriguing, 
now fearfully struggling with each other for the mastery, 
until the doctrine of the unity of the church is consum- 
mated in the assumed sovereignty of the Pope of Rome, 
who sits enthroned in power, claiming to be the head of 
the church on earth. The government of the church was 
at first a democracy, allowing to all its constituents the 
most enlarged freedom of a voluntary religious association. 
It became an absolute and iron despotism. The gradations 
of ecclesiastical organization through which it passed were, 
from congregational to parochial—parochial to diocesan— 
diocesan to metropolitan—metropolitan to patriarchal— 
patriarchal to papal. 

The corruptions and abominations of the church through 
that long night of darkness which succeeded the triumph 
of the Pope of Rome were inexpressibly horrible. The rec- 
ord of them may more fitly lie shrouded in a dead language 
than be disclosed to the light in the living speech of men. 
The successors of St. Peter, as they call themselves, were 
frequently nominated to the chair of “his holiness” by 
women of infamous and abandoned lives. Not a few of 
them were shamefully immoral, and some, monsters of wick- 
edness. Several were heretics, and others were deposed as 
usurpers. And yet this church of Rome, “with such min- 
isters and so appointed—a church corrupt in every part and 
every particular, individually and collectively, in doctrine, 
in discipline, in practice’’—this church prelacy recognizes 
as the only representative of the Lord Jesus Christ, in the 
period now under consideration, invested with all his au- 
thority, and exercising divine powers on earth! She boasts 
her ordinances, her sacraments, transmitted for a thousand 


THE PROGRESS OF EPISCOPACY. 267 


years unimpaired and uncontaminated through such hands! 
High-church episcopacy proudly draws her own apostolical 
succession through this pit of pollution, and then the fol- 
lowers of Christ, who care not to receive such grace from 
such hands, she calmly delivers over to God’s “ uncove- 
nanted mercies!” Nay, more; multitudes of that commu- 
nion are now engaged in the strange work of “ unprotest- 
antizing the churches” which have washed themselves from 
these defilements.* The strife is, with a proud array of 
talents, of learning, and of episcopal power, to bury all 
spiritual religion again in the grave of forms, to shroud the 
light of truth in the gloom of popish tradition, and to sink 
the church of God once more into that abyss of deep and 
dreadful darkness from which she emerged at the dawn of 
the Reformation. In the beautiful and expressive language 
of Milton, their strife is to “reimvolve us in that pitchy 
cloud of infernal darkness, where we shall never more see 
the sun of truth again, never hope for the cheerful dawn, 
never more hear the bird of morning sing.” 


81 Some of these unprotestantizing efforts are sketched by Lord J. 
Russell as follows: ‘There is a danger, however, which alarms me 
much more than any aggressions of a foreign sovereign. Clergymen, 
of our own Church, who have subscribed the Thirty-nine Articles, and 
acknowledged in explicit terms the Queen’s supremacy, have been the 
most forward in leading their flocks, ‘step by step, to the very verge 
of the precipice.’ The honor paid to saints, the claim of infallibility 
for the Church, the superstitious use of the sign of the cross, the mut- 
tering of the liturgy so as to disguise the language in which it is 
written, the recommendation of auricular confession, and the admin- 
istration of penance and absolution—all these things are pointed out 
by clergymen of the Church of England as worthy of adoption, and 
are now openly reprehended by the bishop of London in his charge 
to the clergy of his diocese.” 


4. 


268 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


REMARKS. 


In connection with the view which we have taken of the 
rise and progress of the episcopal system in the ancient 
church, we offer a few remarks upon its present character- 
istics and practical influence. 

1. We object to prelacy as a departure from the order 
of the apostolical and primitive churches. 

Nothing is plainer than that the government of the 
church, in the beginning, was not episcopal. And though 
we are not bound by any divine authority to an exact con- 
formity with the primitive model, yet we cannot doubt that 
the apostles were guided by wisdom from above in giving 
to the churches a different organization, popular in prin- 
ciple, simple in form, and better suited to the exigencies 
of the church in every condition of society. 

While, therefore, with so much gravity and self-compla- 
cency, episcopacy talks of her “ adherence to the Holy 
Scriptures and to apostolical usage,’ we must be permitted 
to object to her whole ecclesiastical polity as an innovation 
upon the scriptural system and a total departure from the 
usage of the apostles without any good reason or beneficial 
results. 

2. Prelacy removes the laity from a just participation in 
the government and discipline of the church. 

Such is prelacy—a government administered for the peo- 
ple, the great expedient of despotism in every form. The 
government of the primitive church was administered by 
the people, the great safeguard of popular freedom, whether 
civil or religious. 

Discipline is also administered for the church by the 
clergy. But the laity are the safest and best guardians of 
the purity of the church. In transferring this duty from 


THE PROGRESS OF EPISCOPACY. 269 


the laity to the clergy, episcopacy does great injustice to 
the private members of the church, and equal injury to the 
cause of pure and undefiled religion. 

3. Prelacy creates unjust distinctions among the clergy, 
whose character and profession is the same. 

The Scriptures authorize no distinction in the duties, 
privileges or prerogatives of bishops and priests, or presby- 
ters. The distinction is arbitrary and unjust. It denies to 
a portion of the clergy the performance of certain duties for 
which they are duly qualified, and to which they are fully 
entitled in common with the bishops. It hinders the infe- 
rior clergy in the performance of their proper ministerial 
duties, and degrades them in the estimation of the people. 

4, Prelacy is intolerant and exclusive. 

This is one of its most obnoxious characteristics. That 
this single church should assume to be the only true church, 
and its clergy the only authorized ministers ; that the only 
valid ordinances and sacraments are administered in their 
communion; that they alone, of all to whom salvation by 
grace is so freely published, are received into covenant 
mercy,—all this is nothing else than a proud and sancti- 
monious self-righteousness. There is an atrocity of charac- 
ter in this spirit which can unchurch the saints of God of 
every age, in every Christian communion, save one, and 
consign them, if not to perdition, to God’s uncovenanted 
mercy—an atrocity which in other days has found its just 
expression in the fires of Smithfield and in the slow torture 
of the auto-da-fé. 

A profound expositor of the constitutional history of 
England has sketched the origin of these high pretensions 
in the English Church. Bancroft, the chaplain of Arch- 
bishop Whitgift, broached these doctrines, but Archbishop 
Laud has the credit of reaffirming and establishing them. 
“Laud and his party began, about the end of Elizabetli’s 

23 ὃ 


De THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


reign, by preaching the divine right, as it is called, or abso- 
lute indispensability of episcopacy, a doctrine of which the 
first traces, as I apprehend, are found about the end of 
Elizabeth’s reign. They insisted on the necessity of epis- 
copal succession, regularly derived from the apostles. They 
drew an inference from this tenet, that ordinations by pres- 
byters were, in all cases, null.” Of Lutherans and Calvin- 
ists they began now to speak “as aliens, to whom they were 
not at all related, and schismatics, with whom they held no 
communion ; nay, as wanting the very essence of Christian 
society. This again brought them nearer, by irresistible 
consequence, to the disciples of Rome, whom, with becom- 
ing charity, but against the received creed of the Puritans, 
and perhaps against their own articles, they all acknow- 
ledged to be a part of the catholic church.” © 

5. Prelacy is monarchical and anti-republican. 

It is monarchical in form, monarchical in spirit, and, 
until transplanted to these States, has been, always and 
everywhere, the handmaid of monarchy. Here it is a mere 
exotic, altogether uncongenial with our own republican soil. 
Its monarchical tendencies and sympathies are clearly ex- 
hibited by Hallam, whose work on the Constitutional His- 
tory of England, Macaulay characterizes as “ the most im- 
partial book that he ever read.” “The doctrine of passive 
obedience episcopacy taught in the reign of Elizabeth even 
in her homilies. To withstand the Catholics, the reliance 
of Parliament was upon the ‘stern, intrepid and uncompro- 
musing spirit of Puritanism.’ Of the conforming churchmen 
in general they might well be doubtful.” © 

The doctrine of the king’s absolute authority was incul- 
cated by the Episcopal clergy. “Especially with the high- 
church party it had become current.” ™ 

82 Hallam’s Constitutional History, Vol. I. pp. 540, 541. 

83 Ibid. pp. 262, 263, δ, Ibid. pp. 437, 438. 


THE PROGRESS OF EPISCOPACY. ie | 


Under Charles I. “they studiously inculeated that resist- 
ance to the commands of rulers was, in every conceivable 
instance, a heinous sin. It was taught in their homilies.” » 
“Tt was laid down in the canons of convocation, 1606.” * 

James considered episcopacy essential to the existence of 
monarchy, uniformly embodying this sentiment in his favor- 
ite aphorism, “ No bishop, no king.” ™ 

Elizabeth and her successors, says Macaulay, “by con- 
sidering conformity and loyalty as identical, at length made 
them so.” 

“Charles himself says in his letters that he looks on epis- 
copacy as a stronger support of monarchical power than 
even an army. From causes which we have already con- 
sidered, the Established Church had been, since the Refor- 
mation, the great bulwark of the prerogative.” * She was, 
according to the same eloquent writer, for more than one 
hundred and fifty years, “the servile handmaid of mon- 
archy, the steady enemy of public liberty. The divine 
right of kings and the duty of passively obeying all their 
commands were her favorite tenets. She held them firmly, 
through times of oppression, persecution and licentiousness; 
while law was trampled down; while judgment was per- 
verted ; while the people were eaten as though they were 
bread.” ep 

6. A monarchy in spiritual things does not harmonize 
with the spirit of Christianity.” 

Our fathers came here to establish “a state without king 
or nobles, and a church without a bishop.” They sought 
to establish themselves here as “a people governed by laws 


85 Hallam’s Const. Hist. Vol. I. p. 264. 86 Tbid. pp. 567-570. 
87 Neal’s History of the Puritans, Vol. IT. pp. 48, 44. 

88 Macaulay’s Miscellanies, Vol. I. p. 293. Boston ed. 

89 Ibid. p, 249. 

9 Neander Hist. Vol. I. p. 183. Trans. 


212 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


of their own making and by rulers of their own choosing.” 
And here, in peaceful seclusion from the oppression of every 
dynasty, whether spiritual or temporal, they became an in- 
dependent and prosperous commonwealth. But what affin- 
ity, what sympathy has its government, civil or religious, 
with that of episcopacy? the one republican, the other 
monarchical; in sympathy, in principle, in form, they are 
directly opposed to each other. We doubt not that most 
of the members of that communion are friends to our repub- 
ican government; but we must regard their religion as a 
strange, unseemly anomaly here—a religious government, 
arbitrary and despotic, in the midst of the highest polit- 
ical freedom; a spiritual despotism in the heart of a free 
republic! 

7. Prelacy is a corrupt compromise with paganism. 

The entire order of the church, after the union of church 
and state under the Christian emperors, became, by its con- 
formity to paganism, a paganized ecclesiasticism. Many 
of the festivals of the church were adopted from pagan 
feasts. Ash Wednesday, Palm Sunday, Easter, St. John’s 
Day, All Soul’s, Candlemas and Christmas, all have a 
strong analogy to the festivals of heathen nations; and im- 
pure orgies of the Lupercalia and Saturnalia, all have a fit 
representation in the grotesque fooleries, revelry and licen- 
tiousness of the Carnival. The ministry of the gospel is 
changed to a sacrificial. priesthood; the communion-table, 
to an altar, and the Lord’s Supper, into the sacrifice of the 
mass. The secret mysteries of the heathen—their holy 
water,” their ritualistic forms, their prayers from a book in 


31 Occupat Aeneas aditum; corpusque recenti spargit aqua. Aen. 
VI. 635. Ovid. Pont. 3, 2, 73. 

“Every person who came to the solemn sacrifices was purified by 
water. To which end, at the entrance of the temples, there was com- 


THE PROGRESS OF EPISCOPACY. 273 


an exact form of words and in a barbarous and unknown 
language, the attendant notifying the progress of the ceremo- 
nials, all are transferred to the church with little or no 
change in form, save that the acolyte in the church has 
substituted the bed/ for the trumpet of the pagan ritual.” 
The images and sacred relics of the pagans, their lares, 
their penates and their deified heroes, all have their repre- 
sentatives in the relics—saints and martyrs of the Catholic 
Church. Their purgatory is only a slight modification of 
the remedial penalties of the dead according to pagan su- 
perstition.* From the worship of Diana, Juno, or Venus, 
the pagan readily turned to that of the Virgin in the 
church. Prayers for the repose of the dead were offered by 
pagans, as by Christians in the papal church, and the pub- 
lic assemblies of both were dismissed in precisely the same 
terms—“ Ite, missa est.”** In walking the streets of Rome, 
by turning a corner, you pass out of Minerva street into 
Jesus street. By a turn as short, as easy, the passage is 
made from Paganism to Romanism. The Pantheon, with- 
monly a vessel full of holy water.”—Potter’s Antiq. of Greece, Vol. 
II. p. 260. Comp. Prideanx’s Connections, Part II. Book IV. 

When Julian, in Gaul, was entering a temple to offer incense, “ the 
priests, in accordance with the pagan custom, sprinkled holy water 
upon them with the branch of a tree. A drop of water fell upon the 
robe of Valentinian, who was a Christian, and he rebuked the priest 
with great severity. It is even said that he tore off, in the presence 
of the emperor, the part of the garment on which the water had fal len, 
and flung it from him.”—Sozomen, Eccl. Hist. Lib. 6, c. 6. Potter’s 
Antiquities of Greece, Vol. I. p. 286. 

52 Vidimus .... alium custodem dari qui attendat, alium vero 
praeponi, qui faveri linguis jubeat; tibicinem, canere. 

"5. Non tamen omne malum miseris, nec funditus omnes 
Corporeae excedunt pestes, 
Ergo exercentur poenis, veterumque malorum 
Supplicia expendunt.—Aen. VI. 736-739. 
** Bib. Sac. May, 1844, p. 402, Note. 
M# 


274 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


out change, becomes a Catholic church, and a statue of the 
Sybil is worshiped as the Virgin Mary. The statue of Ju- 
piter Capitolinus passes from the Capitoline Hill into St. 
Peter’s church, the image of that patron saint. No Catho- 
he passes without kissing its toes, of which three of the nails 
have been worn away by the lips of the devotees. On a 
certain day the cardinals are seen sweeping up the nave of 
St. Peter’s, in their scarlet robes, to perform the same de- 
votions. Such is the strange mixture of Paganism with 
Romanism. Roman polytheism blended with Christianity 
has debased our holy religion to a baptized Paganism. 

This holy catholic church, one and indivisible, deriving 
divine rights by regular succession from the apostles—what 
is it? what its unity, its purity? Who this house of Aaron, 
that have kept all the while the sacred fire of the altar, 
borne up and defended the. tabernacle of the Lord, and 
guarded from all profane intrusion the ark of the cove- 
nant? Has no hypocritical intruder crept in among the 
Lord’s anointed, and with unholy hands essayed these awful 
mysteries, vainly assuming to transmit, by uncanonized rites, 
this heavenly grace? Has no link been broken in this 
mysterious chain, stretching on from the distant age of 
the apostles to the present? Has no irregularity disturbed 
the succession, no taint of heresy marred the purity of its 
descent in this church, which can embrace within its ample 
folds the superstitions, idolatries and pollutions of paganism, 
blended with a debased Christianity? What form of error, 
what delusion, what schism, what creature of sin, has not 
at some time found a place within this holy immaculate 
church, as a component part of this strange catholic unity— 
a unity only of chaos, corruption and infinite confusion ? 


PART SECOND. 


INFORMAL IN ITS WORSHIP. 


CHAPTER XI. 
PRAYERS OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


THE religious worship of the primitive Christians was 
conducted in the same simplicity and freedom which cha- 
racterized all their ecclesiastical polity. They came together 
for the worship of God, in the confidence of mutual love, 
and prayed, and sung, and spoke in the fullness of their 
hearts. A liturgy and a prescribed form of prayer were 
alike unknown, and inconsistent with the spirit of their 
worship. 

In this chapter, it will be my object to establish the fol- 
lowing propositions : 

I. That the use of forms of prayer is opposed to the spirit 
of the Christian dispensation. 

II. That it is opposed to the example of Christ and of his 
apostles. 

III. That it is unauthorized by the instructions of Christ 
and the apostles. 

IV. That it is contrary to the simplicity and freedom ce 
primitive worship. 

V. That it was unknown in the primitive church. 


I. The use of forms of prayer is opposed to the spirit of 
the Christian dispensation. 
“The truth shall make you free.” One part of this free- 
275 


276 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


dom was exemption from the burdensome rites and formali- 
ties of the Jewish religion. ‘The Lord’s free man” was 
no longer bound to wear that yoke of bondage. According 
to the perfect law of liberty, James i. 25; 11.12. Paul re- 
proved Peter and others for their needless subjection to the 
bondage of the Jewish ritual, which imposed unauthorized 
burdens upon Christians, Gal. 11. 4, seq.; 111. 1, seq.; iv. 9, 
seq.; Rom. x. 4, seq.; xiv. 5,6; Col. ii. 16-20. This perfect 
law of liberty, which the religion of Christ gave to his 
followers, imposed upon them no cumbersome rites; it re- 
quired no prescribed forms, with the exception of the simple 
ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. 

Indications of irregularity and disorder are, indeed, ap- 
parent in some of the churches whom Paul addresses; par- 
ticularly among the Corinthians, 1 Cor. xiv. 1, seq. These 
irregularities he severely rebukes, assuring them that God 
is not the author of confusion, but of peace, verse 33: of 
harmony in sentiment and in action. He ends his rebuke 
by exhorting them to let all things be done decently, and 
in order; declaring, at the same time, that the things which 
he writes on this subject are the commandments of God, verse 
θ΄. He commends the Colossians, on the other hand, for 
the good order and propriety which they observed ; “joy- 
ing and beholding their order, and the steadfastness of their 
faith,” Col. ii. 5. 

We will not assert that the spirit of prayer is incompati- 
ble with the use of a prescribed form; but we must feel 
that the warm and gushing emotions of a pious heart flow 
not forth in one unvaried channel. Who, in his favored 
moments of rapt communion, when with unusual fervor of 
devotion he draws near to God, and leaning on the bosom 
of the Father, with all the simplicity of a little child, seeks 
to give utterance to the prayer of his heart—who, under 
such circumstances, breathes to heaven his warm desires 


PRAYERS OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. QE 


through the cold formalities of a prayer-book? When 
praying in the Holy Ghost, the Spirit itself helping our 
infirmities and making intercession for us with groanings 
that cannot be uttered, must we, can we, employ any pre- 
scribed form of words to express these unutterable things ?” 
“Prayer by book,” says Bishop Wilkins in his Gift of 
Prayer, “is commonly of itself something flat and dead; 
floating for the most part in generalities, and not particular 
enough for each several occasion. There is not that life 
and vigor in it to engage the affections as when it proceed- 
eth immediately from the soul itself, and is the natural ex- 
pression of those particulars whereof we are most sensible. 
Τὸ is not easy to express what a vast difference a man may 
find in respect to inward comfort and satisfaction between 
those private prayers that are rendered from the affections 
and those prescribed forms that we say by rote or read out 
of a book.” So prayed not our Lord. Such were not the 
prayers of his disciples. This proposition introduces our 
second topic of remark. 

II. The use of forms of prayer is opposed to the example 
of Christ and the apostles. 

Several of our Lord’s prayers are left on record, all of 
which plainly arose out of the occasion on which they were 
offered, and were strictly extemporaneous. So far as his 
example may be said to bear upon the subject, it is against 
the use of forms of prayer. 

The prayers of the apostles were likewise occasional and 
extemporaneous. Such was the prayer of the disciples at the 
election of Matthias, Acts 1. 24; of the church at the re- 
lease of Peter and John, iv. 24-31; of Peter at the raising 
to life of Tabitha, ix. 40; of the church for the release of 
Peter under the persecution of Herod; and of Paul αὖ his 
final interview with the elders of Ephesus, xx. 36; he 


* Comp. Bishop Hall, in Porter’s Homiletics, p. 294. 
24 


278 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


kneeled down upon the beach and prayed as the struggling 
emotions of his heart allowed him utterance. 

It is particularly worthy of remark, that in all the exam- 
ples of prayer in the New Testament, several of which are 
recorded apparently entire, there is no similarity of form or 
of expression, nor any repetition of a form, with the single 
exception of the response, Amen, Peace be with you, ete. 
Even our Lord’s Prayer is never repeated on such occa- 
sions; nor is there, in all the New Testament, the slightest 
indication of its use either by the apostles or by the churches 
which they established. 

Paul often requests the prayers of the churches to whom 
he writes, in regard to particulars so various and so minute 
as to forbid the supposition that they could have been ex- 
pressed in a liturgy. The same may be said in regard to 
his exhortations to prayer, some of which, at least, are gen- 
erally admitted to have relation particularly to public prayer, 
1 Tim. 11. 1, seq. Who, on reading these various exhorta- 
tions, without any previous opinions or partialities, would 
ever have been directed, by all that the apostle has written, 
to the use of any form of prayer? | 

Our Lord’s Prayer itself is recorded with variations so 
great as to forbid the supposition that it was designed to be 
used as a prescribed form, as the reader must see by a com- 
parison of the parallel passages in the margin.” 


2 In Mart. vi. 9-18. In LUKE ΧΙ. 2-4. 
TLA’TEP ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς" ΤΕΑ ΤΉ: 
ἁγιασϑήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου. ἁγιασϑήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου ἐλϑέτω ἡ 


βασιλεία σου. 
᾿λϑέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου γε- . 
/ Ν 7 / e 3 ’ 

νηϑήτω τὸ ϑέλημά σου, ὡς ἐν οὐ- 
pave, καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. ᾿ 

ms Ae a e ~ pay 3 / Ν Ν ¥ δι χα Ν ᾽ , 

Tov ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς Τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον 
| a / 7 ct ~ ἃς Ε e 2 
ἡμῖν σήμερον. - δίδου ἡμῖν τὸ καϑ’ ἡμέραν. 

Καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰ ὀφειλήματα ἡμῶν, Καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν" 


PRAYERS OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 279 


So great is the variation in these two forms that many 
have supposed they ought to be regarded as two distinct 
prayers. Such was the opinion of Origen. He notices the 
different occasions on which the two prayers were offered, 
and concludes that the resemblance is only such as might 
be expected from the nature of the subject.’ 


ΠῚ. The use of forms of prayer is unauthorized by the 
instructions of Christ and the apostles. 

If any instructions to this effect were given by Christ, 
they were in connection with the prayer which he taught 
his disciples. We have therefore to examine somewhat in 
detail the nature and design of the Lord’s Prayer. The 
views of the learned respecting the nature of our Lord’s 
Prayer and the ends designed by it are arranged by Au- 
gusti under three classes : 

1. Those who maintain that Christ offered no prescribed 
form of prayer either for his immediate disciples or for be- 
levers in any age, but that he gave this as an example of 
the filial and reverential spirit in which we should offer our 
prayers to God, and of the simplicity and brevity which 
ought to characterize our supplications, in opposition to the 
vain repetitions of the heathen and the ostentatious formal- 


ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀφίεμεν τοῖς ὀφειλέταις καὶ yap αὐτοὶ ἀφίεμεν παντὶ ὀφείλοντι 
ἡμῶν. ἡμῖν: 

Καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πει- καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασ- 
ρασμὸν, ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ μόν. 
πονηροῦ. , 

The doxology is generally supposed to be spurious; but without 
noticing the omission of this in Luke, the prayers are as various as 
they might be expected to be, if delivered extemporaneously on two 
different occasions, without any intention of offering either as a pre- 
scribed form of prayer. 

3 Βελτίον ἡ διαφόρους νομίζεσϑαι τὰς προσευχὰς κοινά τινα ἐχοίσας 
μέρη. Περὶ εὐχῆς.---- 0]. I. p. 227. 


280 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


ities of the Pharisees. It is worthy of remark that this was 
originally given immediately after rebuking such hypocrit- 
ical devotions, Matt. vi. 5. Augustine, A. D. 400, expressly 
declares that Christ did not teach his disciples what words 
they should use in prayer, but what things they should pray 
for, when engaged in silent, mental prayer.* 

2. Those who contend that it is a specific and invariable 
form, to be used by Christians in all ages, like the baptismal 
formula in Matt. xxviii. 19, 20, though not to the exclusion 
of other forms of prayer. 

3. Others incline to the opinion that the prayer is an 
epitome of the Jewish forms of prayer which were then in 
use, and that it comprised, in its several parts, the very 
words with which their prayers began, and which were 
embodied in one, as a substitute for so many long and 
unmeaning forms of prayer. 

Whatever be the true view of this subject, it is remark- 
able that our Lord’s Prayer was not in use in the age of the 
apostles. Not the remotest allusion to it occurs either in the 
history of the acts of the apostles or in their epistles. The 
supposition that, in all cases of prayer by the disciples and 
early Christians, the use of this form must be presumed, like 
that of the baptismal formula, is altogether gratuitous and 
groundless. 

In the apostolical fathers, also, no trace is found of this 
prayer. Neither Clement, nor Polycarp, nor any father, 
makes allusion to it, antecedent to Justin Martyr, A. D. 
148. And he informs us that in Christian assemblies, the 
presiding minister offered up prayer and thanksgiving, as 
he was able, ὅση δύναμις ἀυτῷ, and that thereupon the people 
answered Amen! This expression, as we shall show in an- 

* Non enim verba, sed res ipsas eos verbis docuit, quibus et seipsi 


commonefacerent a quo, et quid esset orandum cum in penetralibus, 
ut dictum est, mentis orarent —De Magistro, c.1, Vol. 1. p. 402. 


PRAYERS OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 281 


other place, means—as well as he could, or to the best of his 
ability. Itshows that public prayers were not confined to 
any precomposed forms. The Lord’s Prayer may have 
been used in connection with these extemporary addresses 
of the minister; but there is no evidence of such a usage. 
In describing the ceremony of baptism, Justin speaks of the 
use which is made of “the name of the universal Father,” 
τὸ tod Πατρὸς τῶν ὅλων, which is supposed by some to be 
‘an allusion to the expression, “our Father which art in 
heaven.” ᾿ 

Lucian, A. D. 180, in his Philopatris, speaks of the prayer 
which begins with the Father, ἐυχὴ ἀπὸ Πατρὸς ἀρξάμενη, which 
may possiby be a similar allusion to our Lord’s Prayer. 

Nothing much more explicit occurs in Irenaeus. He 
says, however, “Christ has taught us to say in prayer, ‘And 
forgive us our debts; for he is our Father, whose debtors we 
are, having transgressed his precepts.”° 'This passage only 
shows his acquaintance with the prayer, but proves nothing 
in relation to the liturgical use of it. The same may be 
said of Clement of Alexandria, who makes evident allusion 
to the Lord’s Prayer in several passages.° 

The Apostolical Constitutions belong to a later age, and 
cannot, therefore, be introduced as evidence in the question 
under consideration. 

Tertullian, at the close of the second century and begin- 
ning of the third, together with Origen and Cyprian, who 
lived a few years later, gives more authentic notices of the 
Lord’s Prayer. 

Tertullian not only quotes the Lord’s Prayer in various 
parts of his writings, but he has left a treatise ““On Prayer,” 
which consists of an exposition of it, with some remarks ap- 
pended, concerning the customs observed in prayer. In 

5 Adv. Haeres. Lib. 5, ο. 17. 
6 Especially Paedag. Lib. 3. 
24 * 


282 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


this treatise, which he is supposed to have written before 
he went over to Montanism, A. 1). 200, Tertullian repre- 
sents this prayer, not merely as an exemplar, or pattern 
of Christian petitions, but as the quintessence and ground 
of all prayer; and as a summary of the gospel.’ He 
strongly recommends, however, other prayers, and enumer- 
ates the several parts of prayer, such as supplication, en- 
treaty, confession of sin, and then proceeds to show that we 
may offer other petitions, according to our circumstances 
and desires, having premised this legitimate and ordinary 
prayer, which is the foundation of all.* 

Cyprian, + A. D. 258, repeats the sentiments of Tertul- 
lian, whom he recognizes, to a great extent, as his guide in 
all points of doctrine. He wrote a treatise on the Lord’s 
Prayer, on nearly the same plan as that of Tertullian. He 
has less spirit, but is more full than his predecessor; and 
often explains his obscurities. Cyprian says that our Lord, 
among other important precepts and instructions, gave us a 
form of prayer and taught us for what we should pray. 
He also styles the prayer, our public and common prayer ;° 
and urges the use of it by considerations drawn from the 
nature of prayer, without asserting its liturgical authority 
or established use. 

Origen, contemporary with Cyprian, has a treatise on 
prayer, in the latter part of which he comments at length 
upon the Lord’s Prayer. His remarks are extremly dis- 

7 De Oratione, c. 1, pp. 129, 130. 


8 Quoniam tamen Dominus, prospector humanarum necessitatum, 


seorsum post traditam orandi disciplinam, “ petite,” inquit “et acci- 
pietis ;’ et sunt, quae petantur pro circumstantia cujusque, praemissa 
legitima et ordinaria, oratione quasi fundamento ; accidentium jus est 
desideriorum jus est superstruendi extrinsicus petitiones.—De Orat. c. 10. 

9. Inter cetera sua salutaria monita et praecepta divina, ... . etiam 
orandi ipse forman dedit, . . . . publica est nobis et communis oratio. 


—De Oratione, pp. 204-206. 


PRAYERS OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 283 


cursive, and chiefly of a moral and practical character ; so 
that we derive no satisfactory information from him re- 
specting the liturgical use of this prayer, or of these prayers 
rather as he regards them. He, however, warns his readers 
against vain repetitions and improper requests, charging them 
not to battologize in their prayers;—an error which they 
could have been in no danger of committing, had they been 
guided by the dictation of a prayer-book. The explanation 
which he gives implies the use of extemporaneous prayer.” 

It appears from the foregoing authorities, that our Lord’s 
Prayer was never regularly used by the apostles themselves, 
nor by the churches which they founded until the close of 
the second century and beginning of the third. From this 
time it began to be used, and in the fifth and’sixth centu- 
ries was a part of the public liturgies of the church. 

With reference to the Lord’s Prayer we subjoin the fol- 

“lowing remarks: 

1. It is questionable whether the words of this prayer were 
indited by our Lord himself. If we adopt the theory of many, 
that it is a compend of the customary prayers in the relig- 
ious service of the Jews, how can it with propriety be 
affirmed that our Lord gave to his disciples any form of 
prayer Whatever as his own? 

2. This appears not to have been given to the disciples as a 
form of public prayer, but as a specimen of that spirituality 
and simplicity which should appear in their devotions, in 
opposition to the “vain repetitions of the heathen” and the 
heartless formalities of the Pharisees. It merely enforces a 
holy importunity, sincerity and simplicity in private prayer. 
It was a prayer to be offered in secret, as the context in both 
instances indicates, Matt. vi. 83-14; Luke xi. 1-13. 

3. Our Lord expressly enjoined upon his disciples to offer 
other petitions, of the highest importance, for which no form 

10 De Oratione, c. 21, p. 230. 


284 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


is given. The gifts of the Holy Spirit are offered to those 
who shall ask, while yet no prescribed formula is given in 
which to make known our requests for this blessing. We 
have, therefore, the same authority, even from Christ him- 
self, for extemporaneous as for precomposed prayer. Our 
Lord had no intention of prescribing an exact model of 
prayer, while at the same time he taught us to pray, with- 
out any form, for the highest blessing which we can receive. 

4, A strict adherence to this form is incompatible with a 
suitable recognition of Christ as our Mediator and Interces- 
sor with the Father. ‘ Hitherto,” said our Lord in his last 
interview with his disciples before he suffered, “ye have 
asked nothing in my name.” But a new and peculiar dis- 
pensation was opening to them, by which they might have 
“boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus.” 
The petitions of that prayer might, indeed, be suitable to 
the Christian in every age, and in all stages of his spiritual 
progress; but they are appropriate rather to those under 
the law than to those under grace. 

5. This prayer belongs rather to the economy of the Old 
than to that of the New Testament. Christ was not yet 
glorified. The Spirit was not given; neither was the law 
of ordinances abolished. However useful or important it 
may have been in the worship of God under the Old Testa- 
ment, is it of necessity imposed upon us under that better 
covenant which God has given, and by which he gives us 
nearness of access to his throne, without any of the formal- 
ities of the ancient Jewish ritual, only requiring us to wor- 
ship him in spirit and in truth? 

6. The variations of phraseology in the forms given by 
the evangelists are so great as to forbid the supposition 
that it is a specific and prescribed form of prayer. The 
only form of prayer that can be found in the Scriptures is 
recorded on two occasions, with such variations as to ex- 


PRAYERS OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 285 


clude the possibility of deriving from either any authorized 
and unchangeable form. They have that general resem- 
blance, united with circumstantial variations, which might 
be expected in the prayers of one who was careful only to 
utter the same sentiments without any studied phraseology 
or set form of words. They are as various as two extempo- 
raneous prayers might be expected to be, if uttered upon 
two similar occasions with reference to the same subject.” 


IV. The use of forms of prayer is contrary to the simpli- 
city and freedom of primitive worship. 

All the early records of antiquity relating to the ecclesi- 
astical polity of the primitive Christians and to their rites 
of religious worship concur in the representation that they 
were conducted with the utmost simplicity, in total contrast 
both with the formalities of the ancient Mosaic ritual and 
with the various forms of episcopal worship and government 
which were subsequently introduced.” The men of those 
days accounted themselves the priests of God; and each, 
according to his ability, claimed the liberty not only to 
teach and to exhort, but even to administer the ordinances. 
All this is explicitly asserted in the commentary upon Eph. 
iv. 11, ascribed to Hilary of Rome, about A. D. 360: “After 
churches were everywhere established and ecclesiastical or- 
ders settled, the policy pursued was different from that which 
at first prevailed. or, at first, all were accustomed to teach 
and to baptize, each on every day alike, as he had occasion. 
Philip sought no particular day or occasion in which to 
baptize the eunuch, neither did he interpose any season of 
fasting. Neither did Paul and Silas delay the baptism of 
the jailer and all his house. Peter had the assistance of 


1 On this whole subject, comp. Augusti, Denkwiirdigkeiten, Vol. 
Υ. S. 88-134. 
12 Comp. Schoene, Geschichtsforschungen, I. S. 91-132. 


280 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


no deacons, nor did he seek for any particular day in which 
to baptize Cornelius and his household. He did not even 
administer the baptism himself, but entrusted this duty to 
the brethren who had come with him from Joppa; as yet 
there were no deacons, save the seven who had been ap- 
pointed at Jerusalem. That the disciples might increase 
and multiply, all, in the beginning, were permitted to 
preach, to baptize and to expound the Scriptures. But 
when Christianity became widely extended, small assem- 
blies were formed, pastors and presidents were appointed, 
and other offices instituted in the church. No one pre- 
sumed without ordination to assume the office of the clergy. 
The writings of the apostles do not in all respects accord 
with the existing state of things in the church, because these 
things were written at the time of the first organization of the 
church.” * 

There is a passage in Tertullian, also, indicative of the 
same absence of prescribed form and regularity: “After the 
reading of the Scriptures, psalms are sung, or addresses are 
made, or prayers are offered.” ἢ All is unsettled. The 
exercises are freely varied, according to circumstances. 
This absence of all established forms, and the universal 
enjoyment of religious liberty and equality, were, indeed, 
sometimes misunderstood and abused, even by the churches 
to whom the apostle writes; but they were far from offering 
any encouragement to the disorders and extravagancies of 
fanaticism. Observe, for example, the following upbraid- 
ings of such irregularities by Tertullian: “I must not fail 
to describe in this place the religious deportment of these 
heretics: how unseemly, how earthly, how carnal; without 
gravity, without respect, without discipline; how inconsist- 

18 Comment. ad Eph. iv. 11. Ambros. Opera, Vol. III. Comp. p. 280. 


14 Jam vero prout Scripturae leguntur, aut psalmi canuntur, aut 
adlocutiones proferuntur, aut petitiones delegantur.—De Anima, ec. 9. 


PRAYERS OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 287 


ent with their religious belief! Especially, it is wholly un- 
certain who may be a catechumen, who a Christian profes- 
sor. They all assemble and sit promiscuously as hearers, 
and pray indiscriminately. How impudent are the women 
of these heretics, who presume to teach, to dispute, to exor- 
cise, to practice magic arts upon the sick, and perhaps even 
to baptize! Their elections to offices in the church are 
hasty, inconsiderate and irregular: At one time they elect 
neophytes; at another, men of the world; and then apos- 
tates from us, that they may, at least, gain such by honor, 
if not by the truth. Nowhere is promotion easier than in 
the camps of rebels, where one’s presence is a sure passport 
to preferment. Accordingly one is bishop to-day; to-mor- 
row, another; to-day a deacon, to-morrow a reader; and 
he who is now a presbyter, to-morrow will be again a lay- 
man.” » 

In relation to this passage, which Neander quotes at 
length, he offers the following remarks, which we commend 
to the attentive consideration of the reader: ‘“ We here see 
the operations of two conflicting parties, one of which re- 
gards the original organization of the apostolical churches 
as a divine institution and an abiding ordinance in the 
church, essential to the spread of a pure Christianity. The 
other, which contends for an unrestrained freedom in all 
external matters, opposes these views as foreign to the free- 
dom and simplicity which the spirit of the gospel encour- 
ages. It denies that the kingdom of God, itself inward, 
unseen, can need any outward organization for the support 
and spread of that kingdom. It contends that all Chris- 
tians belong to the priesthood; and this it would practically 
exemplify by allowing no established distinction between 
the clergy and the laity, but permitting all in common to 
teach and to administer the sacraments—two parties which 


1 De Praescriptionibus Haeret. ¢. 41. 


288 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


we often see opposed to each other in the subsequent history of 
the church. One of them lays great stress upon the outward 
organization of the visible church, by not suitably distin- 
guishing between what may be a divine institution and 
what a human ordinance; the other holds the doctrine of 
an invisible kingdom; but overlooking the necessities of 
weak minds, which are incapable of forming conceptions 
of objects so spiritual, rejects with abhorrence all such 
ordinances.” “ἢ 3 

This same conflict of parties was transferred from the 
synagogue to the church. In the former, one party con- 
tended for a strict conformity to the Jewish ritual; the 
other insisted that no ritualistic forms should restrain the 
utterances of the soul in prayer, but each should pray ac- 
cording to the promptings of his own heart.” 


V. The use of forms of prayer was unknown in the prim- 
itive church. 

The apostolical fathers Clement and Polycarp give us no 
information concerning their modes of worship in the age 
immediately succeeding that of the apostles. The circum- 
stances of their meeting in secresy and under cover of the 
latest hours of the night, together with other inconveniences, 
must be very unfavorable to the use of a liturgy, or any 
form of prayer. ‘Tertullian and Eusebius represent the 
primitive Christians, of whom Pliny speaks, to have come 
together ad canendum Christo, to sing praise to Christ. 

Weare left, then, to the conclusion, that the apostolical 
churches neither used any forms of prayer, nor is such use 
authorized by divine authority. In this conclusion we are 
sustained by various considerations, drawn from the fore- 
going views of the simplicity of primitive worship. 

16 Antagonisticus, pp. 340, 341. 1825. 

17 Leyrer. in Hertzog’s Encycl. 15, p. 307, supported by Jost. IT. p. 45. 


, 
PRAYERS OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 289 


1. The supposition of a form of prayer is opposed to that 
simplicity, freedom of speech and absence of all formalities 
which characterized the worship of these early Christians. 

In nothing, perhaps, was the worship of the Christian re- 
ligion more strikingly opposed to that of the Jewish than 
in these particulars. The one was encumbered with a bur- 
densome ritual, and celebrated, with many imposing for- 
malities, by a priesthood divinely constituted, whose rank, 
and grades of office, and duties were defined with great 
minuteness, and observed with cautious precision. The 
other prescribed no ritual; designated no unchanging order 
of the priesthood; but, simply directing that all things 
should be done decently and in order, permitted all to join 
in the worship of God with unrestrained freedom, simplicity 
and singleness of heart. The one requires the worshiper to 
come with awful reverence, and, standing afar off, to pre- 
sent his offering to the appointed priest, who alone is per- 
mitted to bring it near to God. The other invites the 
humble worshiper to draw near in the full assurance of 
faith, and, leaning on the bosom of the Father with the 
confiding spirit of a little child, to utter his whole heart in 
the ear of parental love and tenderness. Is it not contrary, 
then, to the economy of this gracious dispensation to tram- 
mel the spirit of this little child with a studied form of 
speech; to chill the fervor of his soul by the cold dictations 
of another; and require him to give utterance to the strug- 
gling emotions of his heart in language, to him, unconge- 
nial? Does it comport with the genius of primitive Chris- 
tianity to lay upon the suppliant, in audience with his 
Father in heaven, the restraints of courtly formalities and 
the studied proprieties of premeditated prayer? The art- 
lessness and simplicity of primitive worship afford a strong 
presumption in favor of free, extemporaneous prayer. 

2. This presumption is strengthened by the example of 

25 N 


290 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


Christ and his apostles, all of whose prayers, so far as they 
are recorded or the circumstances related under which they 
were offered, were strictly extemporaneous. 

This argument has been already duly considered, and 
may be dismissed without further expansion in this place. 

3. We conclude that no forms of prayer were authorized 
or required in the apostolical churches, because no instruc- 
tions to this effect are given either by Christ or the apostles. 

The Lord’s Prayer was not a prescribed form of prayer, 
neither was it in use in the apostolical churches; nor are 
any intimations given in the New Testament of any form 
of prayer, prayer-book, or ritual of any kind, unless the 
response, to which allusion is made in 1 Cor. xiy. 16, be 
considered as such. Here, then, is a clear omission, mani- 
festly designed to show that God did not purpose to give 
any instructions respecting the manner in which we are to 
offer to him our prayers. This argument from the omissions 
of Scripture is presented with great force by Archbishop 
Whately in support of the opinion which we here offer, and 
we shall accordingly adopt his language to express it. 

After asserting that the sacred writers were supernatural- 
ly withheld from recording some things, he adds: “On no 
supposition, whatever, can we account for the omission, by 
all of them, of many points which they do omit, and of their 
scanty and slight mention of others, except by considering 
them as withheld by the express design and will (whether 
communicated to each of them or not) of their heavenly 
Master, restraining them from committing to writing many 
things which, naturally, some or other of them, at least, 
would not have failed so to record. 

“We seek in vain there for many things which, humanly 
speaking, we should have most surely calculated on finding. 
‘No such thing is to be found in our Scriptures as a cate- 
chism, or regular elementary introduction to.the Christian 


PRAYERS OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 291 


religion; neither do they furnish us with anything of the 
nature of a systematic creed, set of articles, confession of 
faith, or by whatever other name one may designate a 
regular, complete compendium of Christian doctrines: nor 
again do they supply us with a liturgy for ordinary public 
worship, or with forms for administering the sacraments, or for 
conferring holy orders; nor do they even give any precise 
directions as to these and other ecclesiastical matters ;—any- 
thing that at all corresponds to a rubric, or set of canons.’ 

“Now these omissions present a complete moral demon- 
stration that the apostles and their followers must have been 
supernaturally withheld from recording a great part of the 
institutions and regulations which must, in point of fact, 
have proceeded from them ;—withheld, on purpose that other 
churches, in other ages and regions, might not be led to 
consider themselves bound to adhere to several formularies, 
customs and rules that were of local and temporary ap- 
pointment; but might be left to their own discretion in 
matters in which it seemed best to divine wisdom that they 
should be so left.” ** 

4, No form of prayer, liturgy or ritual was recorded or 
preserved by the contemporaries, inspired or uninspired, of 
the apostles, or by their immediate successors. 

This consideration is nearly allied to the former, and is 
so forcibly urged by Archbishop Whately that we shall 
again present the argument in his own words: “ It was, in- 
deed, not at all to be expected that the Gospels, the Acts 
and those Epistles which have come down to us, should have 
been, considering the circumstances in which they were 
written, anything different from what they are; but the 
question still recurs, why should not the apostles or their 
followers have also committed to paper what, we are sure, 
must have been perpetually in their mouths, regular in- 


18 Kingdom of Christ, pp. 82, 83. 


292, | THE PRIMITIVE CHURCII. 


structions to catechumens, articles of faith, prayers and 
directions as to public worship and administration of the 
sacraments? Why did none of them record any of the 
prayers, of which they must have heard so many from an 
apostle’s mouth, both in the ordinary devotional assemblies, 
in the administration of the sacraments, and in the ‘laying 
on of hands, by which they themselves have been or- 
dained Ὁ" 

The superstitious reverence of the early Christians for 
productions from the apostles and their contemporaries is 
apparent in the numerous forgeries of epistles, liturgies, etc., 
which were published under theirname. Had any genuine 
liturgies of the apostolical churches been written, it is in- 
conceivable that they should all have been lost, and such 
miserable forgeries as those of James, Peter, Andrew and 
Mark have been substituted in their place. Some discovery 
must have been made of these among other religious books 
and sacred things of the Christians, which in times of per- 
secution were diligently sought out and burned. Strict 
inquiry was made after such; and their sacred books, their 
sacramental utensils, their cups, lamps, torches, vestments 
and other apparatus of the church were often delivered up, 
and burnt or destroyed. But there is no instance on record 
of any form of prayer, liturgy or book of divine service 
having been discovered in the early persecutions of the 
church. ‘This fact is so extraordinary, that Bingham, who 
earnestly contends for the use of liturgies from the begin- 
ning, is constrained to admit that they could not have been 
committed to writing in the early periods of the church, 
but must have been preserved by oral tradition, and used 
“by memory, and made familiar by known and constant 
practice.”” The reader has his alternative, between this 

19 Kingdom of Christ, pp. 252, 253. 
20 Antiq. Book 13, e. 5. 


PRAYERS OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 293 


supposition, and that of no liturgy or prescribed form of 
prayer in those days of primitive simplicity. Constantine 
took special care to have fifty copies of the Bible prepared 
for the use of the churches of Constantinople, and, by a 
royal commission, entrusted Eusebius, the historian, with 
the duty of procuring them.” How is it, that the service- 
book was entirely omitted in this provision for the worship 
of God? Plainly, because they then used none. 

5. The earliest fathers, in defending the usages of the 
church and deciding controversies, make no appeal to lit- 
urgies, but only to tradition. 

‘For these and other rites of a like character,” says Ter- 
tullian, in speaking of the ceremonies of baptism and of 
the Lord’s Supper—“ for these, if you seek the authority of 
Seripture, you will find none. Tradition is your authority, 
confirmed by custom and faithfully observed.” ” But these 
should have a place in a liturgy. Cyprian advocates the 
mingling of water with wine at the Lord’s Supper, by an 
appeal to tradition, without any reference to the liturgy of 
James.” 

Firmilian, his contemporary, admits that the church at 
Rome did not strictly observe all things which may have 
been delivered at the beginning, “so that it was vain even 
to allege the authority of the apostles.” ἢ 

Basil, A. Ὁ. 378, is even more explicit. After men- 
tioning several things which are practised in the church 
without scriptural authority, such as the sign of the cross, 
praying toward the East, and the form of invocation in the 
consecration of the elements, he proceeds to say: ‘‘ We do 

1 Euseb. Vit. Constant. Lib. 4, 36. 

2 Harum et aliarum hujusmodi disciplinarum si legem expostules 
scripturarum, nullam invenies. ‘Traditio tibi praetenditur autrix, con- 
suetudo confirmatrix, fides observatrix.—De Corona Mil. c. 4. 

33 Ep. 63, c. 2, ad Caecil. 

* ep. ad Cyprian, inter Ep. Cyp. 75, p. 144. 


294 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


not content ourselves with what the apostle or the Gospel 
may have carefully recorded; with these we are not satisfied ; 
but we have much to say before and after the ordinance, 
derived from instructions which have never been written, as 
having great efficacy in these mysteries.” Among these 
unwritten and unauthorized rites, he enumerates afterward 
the consecration of the baptismal water. ‘ From what 
writings, ἀπὸ ποίων ἐγγράφων, he asks, “comes this formu- 
lary? They have none; nothing but silent and secret 
tradition.” ” 

From the fact that the appeal is only to tradition, we 
conclude, with Du Pin and others, that the apostles neither 
authorized nor left behind them any prescribed form of 
worship or liturgy. 

6. That simplicity in worship which continued for some 
time after the age of the apostles forbids the supposition of 
the use of liturgical forms. 

We return now to the second and third centuries, and, 
from the testimonies, particularly of Justin Martyr and 
Tertullian, we learn that the worship of the Christian 
church at this period continued to be conducted in primi- 
tive simplicity, without agenda, liturgy or forms of prayer. 

Justin Martyr, in his Apology in behalf of the Christian 
religion, which he presented to the Roman emperor, Anto- 
ninus Pius, about A. D. 158 or 159,” gives a detailed ac- 
count of the prevailing mode of celebrating the ordinances 
of baptism and the Lord’s Supper in the Christian church, 
in which he repeatedly mentions the prayers which are 
offered in these solemnities: ‘“ After baptizing the believer 
and making him one with us, we conduct him to the brethren, 
as they are called, where they are assembled, fervently to 
offer their common supplications for themselves, for him 


25. De Spiritu Sancto, c. 27. 
6 Justin Martyr, by C. Semisch, Vol. I. p. 72. Trans. Ed. 1843. 


PRAYERS OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 295 


who has been illuminated and for all men everywhere ; 
that we may live worthy of the truth which we have 
learned, and be found to have kept the commandments, so 
that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. After 
prayer, we salute one another with a kiss. After this, bread 
and a cup of wine and water are brought to the president, 
which he takes, and offers up praise and glory to the Father 
of all things, through the name of the Son and of the Holy 
Spirit, and gives thanks that we are accounted worthy of 
these things. When he has ended the prayers and the 
thanksgiving, all the people present respond Amen! which, 
in Hebrew, signifies So may tt be.” 

The description above given relates to the celebration of 
the Lord’s Supper when baptism was administered. In the 
following extract Justin describes the ordinary celebration 
of the supper on the Lord’s day: “On the day called Sun- 
day we all assemble together, both those who reside in the 
country and they who dwell in the city, and the commenta- 
ries of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read 
as long as time permits. When the reader has ended, the 
president, in an address, makes an application, and enforces 
an imitation of the excellent things which have been read. 
Then we all stand up together and offer up our prayers. After 
our prayers, as I have said, bread and wine and water are 
brought, and the president, in like manner, offers prayers 
and thanksgivings according to his ability, ὅση δύναμις αὐτῷ, 
and the people respond, saying Amen!” ” 

Justin, according to Eusebius,” wrote his Apologies at 
Rome. He was personally acquainted with most of the 
principal churches in every land. Whether we regard this 
as descriptive of the usage of the church at Rome or of the 
churches generally, it is gratifying to learn, from a witness 

27 Apol. 1, 61, 65, 67, pp. 71, 82, 83. See above, 168. 
2 Hist. Eccl. Lib. 4, ¢. 11. 


296 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


so unexceptionable, that the church in his time continued 
still to worship God in all the simplicity of the primitive 
disciples. They meet as brethren in Christ; they exchange 
still the apostolical salutation, the kiss of charity ; the Scrip- 
- tures are read, and the president or pastor makes a familiar 
address, enforcing the practical duties which have been pre- 
sented in the reading; a prayer is offered in the consecration 
of the sacred elements, in which the supplant prays accord- 
ing to his ability, following only the suggestions of his own 
heart, without any form; after this, they receive the bread 
and the wine in remembrance of Christ. All is done in 
the affectionate confidence, the simplicity and singleness of 
heart of the primitive disciples.” 

The testimony of Justin, however, is claimed on both 
sides. The whole controversy hinges on that vexed pas- 
sage, ὅση δύναμις αὐτῷ. The congregation all stood up, and 
the president prayed, ὅση δύναμις αὐτῷ, according to his abil- 
ity. Some understand by this phrase, that he prayed with 
as loud a voice as he could; the very mention of which inter- 
pretation is its sufficient refutation: cujus mentio est ejus 
refutatio. Others translate it, with all the ardor and fervency 
of his soul. 

Such are the interpretations of those who contend for the 
use of a liturgy in the primitive church. On the other 
hand, Justin is understood to say that the president prayed 
as well as he could, to the best of his ability, or, as Tertullian 
says, “ex proprio ingenio.” If this be the true meaning, it 
leads to the conclusion that the prayers offered on this occa- 
sion were strictly extemporaneous. ‘This is the interpreta- 
tion not only of non-conformists generally, but of some 
churchmen. [0 is the only fair interpretation of the phrase, 
according to the usus loquendi of this author. 


39 Comp. Schoene, Geschichtsforschungen der Kirch. Gebriiuche, 
JS 102, 103. 


/ 
PRAYERS OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 297 


The same expression occurs in other passages of our au- 
thor, which may serve to illustrate his meaning in this 
equivocal phrase: ) 

“We who worship the Ruler of the universe are not athe- 
ists. We affirm, as we are taught, that he has no need of 
blood, libations and incense. But, with supplication and 
thanksgivings, we praise him according to our ability, ὅση 
δύναμις, for all which we enjoy, ἐφ᾽ οἷς προσφερόμεθα πᾶσιν, 
having learned that worthily to honor him is not to con- 
sume in fire by sacrifice what he has provided for our sus- 
tenance, but to bestow it upon ourselves and upon the needy, 
to show ourselves thankful to him by invocations and hymns 
for our birth, our health and all that he has made, and for 
the vicissitudes of the season.” *° 

The Catholic and Episcopal rendering of this passage 
makes the author say, that in all owr offerings, ἐφ᾽ οἷς 
προσφερόμεϑα πᾶσιν, we praise him, ὅση δύναμις, with the 
utmost fervency of devotion. This, however, is a mistaken 
rendering of the verb, προσφέρομαι, which, in the middle 
voice, means not to offer in sacrifice or to worship, but to 
participate, to enjoy. So it is rendered by Scapula, Hederi- 
cus, Bretschneider, Passow, etc. The passage relates, not 
to an act of sacrifice, nor of public worship, as the connection 
shows, but to deeds of piety toward God and of benevolence 
to men, done according to their ability; by which means 
they offered the best refutation of the groundless calumnies 
of their enemies, who had charged them with an atheistical 
neglect of the gods. The declaration is, that for all their 
blessings they express, according to their ability, thanks- 
givings to God, and testify their gratitude by deeds of 

charity to their fellow-men. 

“ Having, therefore, exhorted you, ὅση δύναμις, sana 
to our ability, both by reason and a visible sign or figure, we 
® Apol. 1, ¢..13, pp. 50, Sl. 

N# 


298 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


know that we shall henceforth be blameless if you do not 
believe, for we have done what we could for your conversion.” 
He had done what he could; by various efforts of argument 
and exhortation and by visible signs he had labored, ac- 
cording to his ability, to bring them to receive the truth. 
The exhortation was the free expression of his heart’s 
desire for their conversion. Can there be any doubt that 
the phrase denotes the same freedom of expression in 
prayer?” 

If one desires further satisfaction on this point, he has 
only to turn to the works of Origen, in which this and 
similar forms of expression are continually occurring, to 
denote the invention, ability and powers of the mind. 
Origen, in his reply to the calumnies of Celsus, proposes to 
refute them “according to his ability.”® In his preface, he 
has apologized for the Christians “as well as he could.” 
These Christians sought, “as much as possible,” to preserve 
the purity of the church.” They strove to discover the 
hidden meaning of God’s word, “according to the best of 
their abilities.” ** In these instances the reference is not to 
the fervor of the spirits, the ardor of the mind, but to the 
exercise of the mental powers. The act performed is done 


$1 Apol. 1, c. 55, p. 77. 

*2 Comp. King, in the author’s Ancient Christianity, 274, 309. 

ὅδ "Oon δύναμις, Lib. 6, δ 1, Vol. I. p. 694; so also, κατὰ τὸ δύνατον, 
ἢ 12, p. 638. 

34 Κατὰ τὴν παροῦσαν δύναμιν͵, Praef. Lib. contr. Cel. 

856 "Oon δύναμις, Contr. Cel. Lib. 3, Vol. I. p. 482. 

86 Lib. 6, 4 2, p. 680. Comp. also in Comment. in Matt. ὅση δύναμις, 
Tom. 17, Vol. III. p. 809; κατὰ τὸ divarov, Tom. 16, Vol. III. p. 735; 
κατὰ δύναμιν, Tom. 17, Vol. III. p. 779, also Vol. IV. p. 6; κατὰ τὴν 
παροῦσαν δύναμιν, Tom. 17, Vol. IIT. p. 794. 

In Clarkson’s Discourse on Liturgies many other passages are given 
from Justin, Origen, Chrysostom, Basil, etc., all illustrating the same 
use of the phrase. Select Works, London, 1846, p. 294, seq. 


PRAYERS OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 299 


according to the ingenuity, the talents of the agents in each 
case. 

Basil, in giving instructions how to pray, advises to make 
choice of scriptural forms of thanksgiving, and when you 
have praised him thus, according to your ability, ὡς δύνασαι, 
exactly equivalent to d5va¢v:c—then he advises the suppliant 
to proceed to petitions.” The Greeks and the Romans pray 
each in their own language, according to Origen, and each 
praises God as he is able.* But enough has been said upon 
this point, and the reader may safely be left to his own con- 
clusions. 

We come next to Tertullian. ‘ We Christians pray with 
eyes uplifted, with hands outspread, with head uncovered ; 
and, ... . without a monitor, because from the heart.” Can 
this be the manner of one praying from a prayer-book? 
Clarkson has shown, with his usual clearness, that the 
heathen worshiped by ritual, .... and rehearsed their 
prayers from a book; and that Tertullian says this to con- 
trast the Christian mode of worship with these heartless 
forms. The ancient fire-worshipers “read the daily offices 
of their liturgy” before their sacred fire. The Pagan 
liturgy of the old Romans was read in a language obsolete 
and almost unintelligible, like the present Romish liturgy. 
The Lacedemonians were strict liturgists.” But these warm- 
hearted Christians needed no such promptings to give utter- 
ance to their devotions. Out of the abundance of the heart 
the mouth speaketh. 


Τ᾽ Basil, De Ascet., Vol. II. p. 536. 
38 ὡς δύναται, Origen Contra Cels. Lib. 8, c. 37, p. 769. 
39 Tllue sursum suspicientes Christiani manibus expansis, quia in- 
* nocuis, capite nudo, quia non erubescimus; denique sine monitore, 
quia de pectore oramus.—A pol. c. 30. 

40 Clarkson, Liturgies. Prideaux, Connections, Part I. Book IV. 
Potter’s Antiq. of Greece, I. p. 281-288. 


900 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


Again, “ When the sacramental supper is ended, and we 
have washed our hands, and the candles are lighted, every 
one is invited to sing unto God, as he is able; either in 
psalms collected from the Holy Scriptures or composed by 
himself, de proprio ingenio. And as we began, so we con- 
clude all with prayer.” * 

From Tertullian we have the earliest information respect- 
ing the religious ordinances of the churches in Africa. The 
reader will not fail to notice that this church also retains 
still the simplicity of the apostolical churches mingled with 
some Roman customs. Their religious worship opens with 
prayer, after which the Scriptures are read and familiar 
remarks are offered upon them. Then follows the sacra- 
mental supper, or more properly the love-feast of the primi- 
tive church, which they begin with prayer. After the 
supper, any one is invited to offer a sacred song, either 
from the Scriptures, or indited by himself. And the whole 
ends with prayer. The entire narrative indicates a free, 
informal mode of worship, as far removed from that which 
is directed by the agenda and rituals of liturgical worship 
as can well be conceived. 

In the same connection, Tertullian also forcibly illustrates 
the sincerity and purity of this primitive worship. Speak- 
ing of the subjects of their prayers, he says: “ These bless- 
ings I cannot persuade myself to ask of any but of Him from 
whom alone I know that I can obtain them. For he only 
can bestow them. And to me he is covenanted to grant 
them. For I am his servant, and him only do I serve. 
For this service I stand exposed to death, while I offer to 
him the noblest and best sacrifice which he requires—prayer 
proceeding from a chaste body, an innocent soul and a sancti- . 


41 Apol. c. 39. This implies extempore prayer, though does not ex- 
clude a devout use of a form, memoriter. 


PRAYERS OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 301 


fied spirit.” Beautiful exemplification of the words of our 
Lord to the woman of Samaria: “ Believe me, the hour 
cometh when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at 
Jerusalem, worship the Father. God is a spirit, and they 
that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” 
John iv. 21, 24. 

The authority of Tertullian is against the supposition that 
the primitive churches used forms of prayer. “We pray 
without a monitor, because from the heart,” sine monitore quia 
de pectore. This passage 1s conclusive evidence that their 
prayers were informal, extempore, in contrast with those 
of the heathen, whose custom was to rehearse their prayers 
from a prescribed form, repeating the words after a monitor 
reading from the prayer-book the exact form of words. 
We Christians have no form, no monitor; because we pray. 
from the heart, and out of the abundance of the heart the 
mouth speaketh. The custom is affirmed and examples 
given in the notes. 

Alexander the Great, on the eve of battle, calls Aristan- 
der, his monitor, his priest, to rehearse his prayers in order 
to propitiate his gods. Decius the Roman consul, and 
Claudius the emperor, prayed in like manner under similar 
circumstances.” 


42 Anol. c. 30. Comp. De Orat. 29. 

43 Vidimus certis praecationibus, obsecrasse summos magistratus : 
et, ne quid verborum praetereatur, aut praepesterum dicatur, de 
scripto praeire aliquem;... . cujus sacri praecationem, qua solet 
praeire quindecimviraim collegii magister si quis legat, ete..— Pliny. 
Nat. Hist. B. XXVIII. 2. Alexander, non alias magis territus, ad 
vota et preces Aristandrum vocari jubet. lle in candida veste, ver- 
benas in manu praeferens, capite velato praeibat preces regi Jovem, 
Minervam, victoriamque propitiantii—Q. Curtvus, Lib. 1V.e:432) an 
hac tripidatione, Decius consul M. Vabrium, magna voce inclamat ! 
Deorum inquit. ope, Valeri, opus est, Agedum, pontifex publicus populi 
Romani, praei verba, quibus me pro legionibus devoveam. ‘Then 

26 


902 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


The manner was, at the beginning of the third century, 
to repeat the Lord’s Prayer as the basis and pattern of all 
appropriate prayer to God, and then to enlarge in free, un- 
premeditated supplications, according to the circumstances 
and desires of the suppliant. 

Another circumstance mentioned above by Tertullian 
shows how far the worship of the primitive Christians was 
at this time from being confined to the prescribed and un- 
varying formalities of a ritual. It appears that in their 
social worship each was invited to sing praises to God either 
from the Holy Scriptures or “de proprio ingenio,” of his 
own composing. Grant, if you please, that these sacred 
songs may have been previously composed by each. They 
are still his own, and have to the hearer all the novelty and 
variety of a strictly extemporaneous effusion. So he who 
leads in prayer, like the one who sings his song, may offer 
a free prayer which he has previously meditated. But, in 
the opinion of many, such songs may have been offered im- 
promptu, like the songs of Moses and Miriam, and Deborah, 
Simeon and Anna. Augustine speaks of such songs, and 
ascribes to divine inspiration the ability to indite them. 
The improvisatori of the present age are an example of the 
extent to which such gifts may be cultivated without any 
supernatural aid.“ If, therefore, such freedom was allowed 
in their psalmody, much more might it be expected in their 
prayers. 

7. The attitude of the primitive Christians in prayer is 


he prays to Janus, Jupiter, Mars, Quirinus, Bellona, etc., the pontifex 
maximus directing the form.—Liv. Lib. VIII. ο. 9. Claudius madea 
rule that, dira avi in urbe aut in Capitolio visa, obsecratio haberetur, 
eamque ipse, jure Maximi Pontificis, commonito pro rostris, populo, 
praeiret.—Sueton. Claudius, ἃ. 22. 

44 Comp. Walch. De. Hymn. Eccl. Apost. ¢ 20. Minter, Metr, 
Offenbar. Pref. 


PRAYERS OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. oua 


against the supposition that they used a prayer-book. It 
was with arms raised toward heaven and hands outspread,” 
or it was kneeling and prostrate, with the eyes closed, to 
shut out from view every object that might divert the mind 
from its devotions, or, as Origen expresses it, “closing the . 
eyes of his senses, but erecting those of his mind.” Few facts 
in ancient history are better attested than this. The coins 
that were struck in honor of Constantine represent him in 
the attitude of prayer. But how? Not with prayer-book 
in hand, but with hands extended and eyes upturned, as of 
looking toward heaven, ὡς ἄνω βλέπειν δυχεῖν dvatetapésvos.” 

“His portrait also at full length was placed over the en- 
trance gates of the palaces in some cities, the eyes upraised 
to heaven, and the hands outspread as if in prayer.” 

We raise the head and lift the hands to heaven.” 

Now all this, if not absolutely incompatible with the use 
of a liturgy, must be allowed to have been a very inconve- 
nient posture, upon the supposition that a liturgy was em- 
ployed. 

8. We have yet to add that the manner in which precon- 
ceived prayers began to be used is decisive against any 
divine authority for their use. That in the earliest stages 
of the episcopal system there was no settled and invariable 
form of prayer is an acknowledged historical fact. All that 
was required was that the prayers should not be unpremed- 
itated, but previously composed and committed to writing. 
Still they were occasional, and may have had all the variety 


45 Tlluec sursum suspicientes Christiani manibus expansis, ete. Ter- 
tul. Apol.c 30. Comp. De Orat. c. 14. Non tollimis tantum sed 
expandimus [manus]. Odtw¢ ἁυτάς εἷς εὑχην ανατείνωσιν —Chrysost. 
in Homil. 57. 

46 Euseb. Vit. Const. Lib. IV. c. 15. 

47 TIpooevteivouev τῆν κιφαλὴν καὶ τὰς χεῖρας εἰς οὐρανὸν dipouev.— 


Clemen. Alex. Strom. Lib. 7. 


04 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


and adaptation of extempore prayers. This fact strikingly 
exhibits an intermediate state in the transition of the church 
from thet freedom and absence of forms which characterized 
her earliest and simplest worship to the imposing formalities 
of a later date. But it precludes the supposition that an 
authorized liturgy could have previously existed. 

9. If it were necessary to multiply arguments on this 
point, we might mention the secret discipline of the church 
as evidence against the use of a liturgy. This of itself is 
regarded by Schéne and others as conclusive on this sub- 
ject, a written and prescribed liturgy being quite incompat- 
ible with these mysteries. Basil refused to give explana- 
tions in writing to Miletus, but referred him to Theophrast 
for verbal information, that so the mysteries might not be 
divulged by what he would have occasion to write. “ Mys- 
teries,”’ said Origen also, with reference to the same point, 
“must not be committed to writing.” The sacramental 
prayers and baptismal rites, which should have a place in 
a liturgy, were among these profound mysteries. How they 
could have been kept veiled in such mystery if recorded in 
a prayer-book, is past our comprehension. 

Basil, of the fourth century, informs us that he pro- 
nounced the doxology with varied phraseology—that the 
baptismal formulary was unrecorded, and that the church 
had not even a written creed or confession.“ Clarkson has 
shown by a multitude of citations that the same is true of 
every part of religious worship which a liturgy prescribes. 
He has also given many instances of occasional prayers, 
which are inconsistent with the supposition that they were 
rehearsed from a prayer-book.” 

Finally, the origin of these ancient liturgies and the oc- 

45. Αὐτὴν δὲ ὁμολογίαν τῆς πίστεως εἰς πατέρα καὶ υἱὸν καὶ ἅγιον πνεῦμα 
ἐκ ποίων γραμμάτων ἔχομεν.--- De Spiritu Sancto, c. 27, p. 57; comp. p. 55. 

*® Discourse on Liturgies. 


PRAYERS OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 305 


casion on which they were prepared is no recommendation 
of them. 

They were adopted from pagan rituals, and had their 
origin in an ignorant and degenerate age. Palmer ascribes 
the four original liturgies, in which all others have origin- 
ated, to the fifth century. He thinks, however, that some 
expressions in one may perhaps be traced to the fourth. 
The utmost that even the credulity of the Oxford Tracta- 
rians pretends to claim in favor of their antiquity is, that 
“one, that of Basil, may be traced with tolerable certainty 
to the fourth century, and three others to the middle of the 
fifth.” *° Ambrose, Augustine, Gregory, Basil and Chry- 
sostom, those great luminaries of the church, had passed 
away, and an age of ignorance and superstition had suc- 
ceeded. Riddle of Oxford, the faithful chronicler of the 
church, gives the following sketch of the degeneracy of this 
age, the close of the fourth century: 

“ Superstitious veneration of martyrs and their relics, cred- 
- ulous reliance upon their reputed powers of intercession, 
reports of miracles and visions at their tombs, and other 
follies of this kind, form a prominent feature in the religion 
of the age. 

“ New Festivals during this century.—Christmas-day, As- 
cension-day, Whitsunday (in the modern sense). 

“ Baptismal Rites, Ceremonies, etc.—1. Wax tapers in the 
hands of the candidates; 2. Use of salt, milk, wine and 
honey ; 3. Baptisteries; 4. Easter and Whitsuntide, times 
of baptism; 5. Twofold anointing, before and after baptism ; 
6. Dominica in Albis. 

“The Lord’s Supper, 1, was now commonly called Missa 
by the Latins; 2. Tables had come into use, and were now 
called altars; 3. Liturgies used at the celebration of the rite; 


50 Tract, No. 63, Vol. 1. p. 439. 


26 * 


906 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


4, Elements still administered in both kinds as before; 
5. No private masses. 

“ Rapid progress of church oligarchy, and formation of the 
patriarchate.” 

Again, A. D. 439: “Christian morality declines—Two 
distinct codes of morals gradually formed, one for perfect 
Christians, and another for the more common class of be- 
lievers; the former consisting of mysticism and ascetic or 
overstrained virtue, the latter in the performance of outward 
ceremonies and ritual observances. The distinction itself 
unsound and mischievous; the morality, to a great extent, 
perverted or fictitious. 

“ History now records fewer examples of high Christian 
character than before. Complaints of the fathers and de- 
erees of councils lead us to fear that impiety and disorderly 
conduct prevailed within the borders of the church to a 
melancholy extent. Superstition makes rapid progress.” δ᾽ 

Out of this age, when nothing was introduced “ but cor- 
ruptions and the issues thereof, no change made in the cur- ° 
rent usages but for the worse, no motions from its primitive 
posture but downward into degeneracy ’”’—out of this age 
proceeded the first liturgy, the offspring of ignorance and 
superstition ! 

The clergy had become notoriously ignorant and corrupt, 
unable suitably to guide the devotions of public worship ; 
and to assist them in their ignorance and incompetence, 
liturgies were provided for their use.” ‘“ When, in process 
of time, the distinguished fathers of the church had passed 


1 Riddle’s Chronology, A. D. 400, A. D. 439. 

ὅ5 The reader will find abundant evidenée of this ignorance in the 
councils of this age and in Blondell, Apologia Hieron., pp. 500, 501, 
Clarkson, Discourse on Liturgies, Works, 364-374, and Witsius, Ex- 
ercitat. De Oratione, 3 30, 31, p. 85. In the council of Ephesus, in 
the fifth century, Elias signs his name by the hand of another, because 


PRAYERS OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 307 


away, and others of an inferior standing arose in their places 
with less learning and talents for public speaking—as bar- 
barism and ignorance continued to overspread the Roman 
empire, and after the secret mysteries of Christianity had 
been done away, or, at least, had assumed another form of 
manifestation—then the clergy, not being competent them- 
selves to conduct the exercises of religious worship to the 
edification of the people, saw the necessity of providing 
themselves with written formulas for their assistance. or 
this purpose men were readily found to indite and transcribe 
them. In this manner arose its formularies, which are 
known under the name of liturgies and missals, and which 
afterward, in order to give greater authority to them, were 
ascribed to distinguished men, and even to the apostles 
themselves, as their authors.” * 

Shall, then, superstition, ignorance and barbarism, rather 
than God’s own word, teach us how we may most acceptably 
pray unto him? Shall we forsake the example of Christ 
and the apostles to imitate ignorant men, who first made 
use of a liturgy because they were unable, without it, de- 
cently to conduct the worship of God? 

How forcibly does the formality of such liturgical services 
contrast with the simplicity and moral efficacy of primitive 


he could not write his name; eo quod nesciam literas. So, also, Caju- 
mas: propterea quod literas ignorem. 

The ignorance of the English clergy was equally notorious. Alfred 
the Great declares that he did not know a single priest south of the 
Thames who was able to read prayers.—Spelman’s Life of Alfred. 

The books of homilies, even as late as the reigns of Edward VI. and 
of Queen Elizabeth, were prepared for the use of the clergy, because 
they were too ignorant to prepare original discourses for themselves. 
“Had there been men enough who could preach, there would have 
been never a homily devised.” 

53 Sechine, Geschichtsforschungen, der Kirch. Gebriuche, II. 8. 
120, 121. 


308 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


worship! Christianity ascends the throne, and, in connec- 
tion with the secular power, gives laws to the state. The 
government has a monarch at its head; and the church, 
bishops in close alliance with him. The simple rites of re- 
ligion, impressive and touching by their simplicity, have 
given place to an imposing and princely parade in religious 
worship. Splendid churches are erected. The clergy are 
decked out with gorgeous vestments, assisted by a numerous 
train of attendants, and proceed in the worship of God with 
all the formalities of a prescribed and complicated ritual. 
Age after age these liturgical forms continue to increase 
with the superstition and degeneracy of the church, until 
her service becomes encumbered with an inconceivable mass 
of missals, breviaries, rituals, pontificals, graduals, antipho- 
nals, psalteries, etc., alike unintelligible and unmeaning. 

But the simplicity of primitive Christianity gives it 
power. [Ὁ has no cumbersome rites to embarrass the truth 
of God. Nothing to dazzle the eye, to amuse and occupy 
the mind that is feeling after God, if haply it may find 
him. All its solemn rites are in harmony with the sim- 
plicity of that system of gospel truth which is at once the 
wisdom of God and the power of God in the conversion of 
men. 


REMARKS. 


1. To the people of the congregation forms of prayer are 
inappropriate. 

How variable the infinite play of the passions in the 
heart, and how preposterous the attempt to give utterance 
to them in one unvarying tone! As if the harp of David 
were always strung to the same key and sounded one un- 
changing note! First stereotype the mind and heart of 
man, and then is he prepared to express his devotions in 
the unvarying letter of a liturgy. 


PRAYERS OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 309 


Amid all the ills that man is heir to, new and unfore- 
seen calamities are ever and anon met with, which bring 
men to the throne of grace with supplications and en- 
treaties of a special character, whereof the liturgy takes 
no account. 

2. Liturgical forms become wearisome by constant repe- 
tition. 

The love of change is inherent in the breast of man. We 
must have variety. Without it, even our refined pleasures 
lose their charm in a dull and dead monotony. So a litur- 
gy, however excellent in diction or noble in sentiment, loses 
its interest by perpetual repetition. The continual recur- 
rence even of the best possible form, that of the Lord’s 
Prayer, injures its effect upon our own mind. We have 
heard it at the table in our daily meals; at morning and 
evening prayer, and in some instances it has been the only 
prayer offered in our hearing on such occasions; at funerals, 
at marriages, in baptism, in confirmation, at the sacrament 
of the Lord’s Supper, and in every public service, not once 
merely, but twice or thrice, and even more than this; as 
if no religious act could be rightly done without the intro- 
duction somewhere of the Lord’s Prayer. Such ceaseless 
repetition only creates a weariness of spirit which earnestly 
craves a freer and more informal mode of worship. “ How 
often have I been grieved to observe coldness and compara- 
tive indifference in the reading-desk, but warmth and ani- 
mation in the pulpit! In how many different places have 
I been ebliged to conclude, This man preaches in earnest, 
but prays with indifference! I have asked myself, I have 
asked others, what is the reason of such conduct.” * The 
case so embarrassing to our churchman is easily explained. 
At the reading-desk the Episcopal preacher utters the cold 
dictations of another; in the pulpit he expresses the warm 


54 Churchman, in Christian Observer, 1804, p. 271. 


310 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


suggestions of his own heart. Here, accordingly, his utter- 
ance is instinct with life and spirit; there, it is changed by 
perpetual repetition into chilling indifference, a monotonous 
dead letter. 

3. A liturgy is often not in harmony with the subject of 
discourse. ὁ 
_ The preceding remarks relate to the disadvantages of the 
liturgy to the people; the present, and some that follow, 
have reference to the inconvenience experienced by the 
clergymen from the same source. Every preacher knows 
the importance of harmony in his services. And if per- 
mitted, in the freedom of primitive worship, to direct them 
accordingly, he studiously seeks to make the impression 
from the prayers, the psalmody and the reading of the 
Scriptures coincident with the subject of his sermon; so 
that all may conspire to produce a single impression upon 
the hearer. The final result upon the audience is ascriba- 
bie in a great degree to the harmony which pervades the 
entire service. But here the liturgy interposes its unyield- 
ing forms to break up this harmony of the service and sadly 
to impair the effect of it upon the audience. 

4. The liturgy is not a suitable preparation for the im- 
pression of the sermon. 

Much of the practical effect of the preacher’s discourse 
depends upon the previous preparation of the mind for it. 
This preparation results, in a great degree, from a happy 
adaptation of the preliminary services to thisend. But the 
preliminaries of the liturgy move on with unvarying form- 
ality, carrying the mind, it may be, directly away from the 
subject of the discourse that is to follow, or leaving the 
audience uninterested and unprepared for any quickened 
impression from the preacher. All has been done with 
cold and decent formality, but the profiting of the hearer is 
not apparent. How much of the inefficacy of the pulpit in 


PRAYERS OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. ome 


the Episcopal Church is ascribable to this cause, we leave 
the reader to judge. 

5. A liturgy curtails unreasonably the time allotted to 
the sermon. 

A sermon may be, and often is, too long; it may also be 
too short. Following the protracted recitals of the liturgy, 
it is necessarily crowded into a narrow space at the conclu- 
sion of a service which has already unfitted the audience 
for a calm, sustained attention to the preacher. What he 
has to say must be quickly said; he therefore hurries 
through a brief and superficial exposition of his subject and 
dismisses it with a hasty application, before it has had time 
to assume in the hearer’s mind that importance which be- 
longs to its momentous truths. The final result is that it 
falls powerless upon the consciences of the audience. 

6. The liturgy exalts the inventions of man above the 
truth of God. 

The liturgy is ever prominently before the audience, 
claiming the first attention, the highest place in all the acts 
of worship. The tendency of the whole arrangement is to 
keep back the word of God, to hold in check its power as 
the means of salvation, and to substitute in its place a sys- 
tem of mere formalism. 

In this connection the profound remarks of Archbishop 
Whately, respecting undue reliance on human authority, 
are worthy of serious consideration. He exposes with great 
force the disposition of men to “obtrude into the place of 
Scripture, creeds, catechisms and liturgies, and other such 
compositions, set forth by any church.” The disposition he 
ascribes to deep-seated principles of our nature. He sup- 
poses that nothing but a miraculous providence could have 
so directed the apostles and primitive Christians that they 
left no such formulary of religious worship or compend of the 

‘nristian faith. “ Such a systematic course of instruction, 


ole THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


carrying with it divine authority, would have superseded 
the framing of any other—nay, would have made even the 
alteration of a single word, of what would on this supposition 
have been Scripture, appear an impious presumption. ... . 
So that there would have been an almost inevitable danger 
that such an authoritative list of credenda would have been 
regarded, by a large proportion of Christians with a blind, 
unthinking reverence, which would have exerted no influ- 
ence on the character. They would have had a form of 
godliness; but, denying the’ power therof, the form itself 
would have remained with them only the corpse of departed 
religion.” 

The Romans were ritualists of the severest order. A de- 
viation in a single word from their liturgical forms was an 
ill omen, vitiating the efficacy of their prayer. To prevent 
this, a prompter was required to rehearse the prayer, word 
for word, for the devotee at his devotions. The introduc- 
tion of new liturgical forms was a grievous offence against 
the state. In the time of the first Punic war there was a 
crowd of women who neither sacrificed nor prayed accord- 
ing to the established form. This first gave great umbrage 
to good men, then it was reported to the Senate, who se- 
verely reprimanded the aediles and triumvirs—answering 
to our grand jury—because they had not prevented it, and 
ordered the praetor—the mayor of the city—to suppress the 
evil. This he accomplished by ordering all who had in 
their possession forms of prayer, or written rubrics, to de- 
liver them to him before the first of April.” 

Thus history repeats itself from age toage. The ritualists 
of to-day, in enacting again these heathenish superstitions 


5° Errors of Romanism, pp. 49-61. 

55. Edixit ut quicunque libros vaticinos, praecationesve, aut artem 
sacrificandi conscriptam haberet eos libros omnes literasque ad se ante 
calendas Apriles deferret.— Liv., lib, XXV. ο. 1. 


PRAYERS OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 313 


of the Romans, forcibly illustrate the foregoing profound 
remarks of Archbishop Whately, while they suggest an 
urgent reason for confining the ceremonials of religion 
within the strictest limits. But this continual recital of 
creeds and confessions, this perpetual profession of faith in 
the “holy catholic church,” these rites of the ritual ever 
recurring and foremost in importance, to which everything 
else gives place in public worship,—who can doubt the 
practical influence of all this? It casts into shade and dis- 
tance God’s own word. It brings forward the dictations of 
canonized tradition as the rule of faith and of worship; and 
spiritual truth is forgotten in this parading of the ceremo- 
nials of religion. 

7. The book of Common Prayer dishonors the holy Sab- 
bath. 

We have sought in vain for any clear expression of the 
divine authority of the Lord’s day. It is specified in the 
calendar among many other holy days of the holy church, 
some of which seem to be regarded with equal reverence. 
The specifications respecting it all serve to direct the mind 
to it as merely an ordinance of the church. They bring it 
down from its lofty place as a divine institution, and blend 
it unworthily with a multitude of saints’ days, which a blind 
superstition first established and still venerates. When the 
true doctrine of the sacred Sabbath was first promulgated, 
it encountered for half a century the furious opposition of 
the established church on this very principle, that it was 
derogatory to the authority of the church, and to the rever- 
ence due to its festivals and fasts. Its advocates were 
suspended from their ministerial duties, deposed and im- 
prisoned for daring to assert that this holy Sabbath depended 
on higher authority than the usage and decrees of the 
church. Whatever may be the sentiments of Episcopalians 
at present respecting this day, we cannot resist the convic- 

27 0 


14 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


tion that it has in the prayer-book no higher place than the 
other holy days of the church. 

8. We object to the popish origin and tendencies of the 
English liturgy. 

It is a translation and compend of the popish ritual, and 
still savors strongly of its origin. Must we, in this nine- 
teenth century, go back to the dark ages of popery to learn 
from its traditions, its superstitions, how we may best 
worship God in spirit and in truth? But this “ pathetic 
litany,” “this noble liturgy,” it is said, “is it not ad- 
mirable ?” 

Let us examine a little. What change has the liturgy 
undergone in passing over from the Romish to the English’ 
Church. The chief points of distinction, according to Hal- 
lam, are the following: 

1. The liturgy was translated into the vernacular lan- 
guage of the people. Formerly it had been in an unknown 
tongue. 

2. Its acts of idolatrous worship to saints and images 
were expunged. 

3. Auricular confession was done away; or rather it was 
left to every man’s discretion, and went into neglect. 

4, “The doctrine of transubstantiation, or the change, at 
the moment of consecration, of the substances of bread and 
wine into those of Christ’s body and blood,” was discarded. 

5. The celibacy of the clergy was abolished.” 

With these modifications the religion of Rome became 
that of the Church of England. And to this day her ritual, 
crudely formed in the infancy of Protestantism, which Mil- 
ton denominates “an extract of the mass translated,”* con- 
tinues, with little variation, to be the liturgy of the whole 
Episcopal Church in England and America. 


7 Constitutional History, Vol. I. pp, 116-126. 
* See the Appendix. 


PRAYERS OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 915 


Miles Coverdale objected to it that it was “reformed 
Pope-wise.’ To which Whitehead, one of the commission 
under Elizabeth to reform the service, replied that they 
were “under her strait behest to purge the liturgy of all 
that might give scandal or offence to the papists.” Thus it 
was “ patched together out of the popish matins, even-song 
and mass-books.” Many of the Catholics continued in 
office under the establishment, considering that ‘there was 
nothing in the service of the English Church which was 
repugnant to that of Rome.” As the ancient church con- 
descended to a debasing compromise with Paganism, so the 
English Church studiously sought alliance with Romanism. 

For similar reasons the Puritans refused the ceremonies 
and vestments of the Established Church. It was “receiving 
papistical habits into the church. We refuse not to wear 
such apparel as shall be thought, to the godly and prudent 
magistrates, most decent to our vocation, and to discern us 
from men of other callings, so that we may even keep our- 
selves pure from the defiled robes of Antichrist.” These dis- 
senters were called Purirans, “as men that did profess a 
greater purity in the worship of God, and a greater detesta- 
tion of the ceremonies and corruptions of Rome, than the 
rest of their brethren.” | 

Even the book of homilies was drawn up at the same 
time “to supply the defect of preaching, which few of the 
clergy at that time were capable of performing.” ” 

The liturgy had at first, and still retains, many popish 
affinities. ‘These are seen in the canonizing of saints and 
celebration of saints’ days; in the absolution by the priests, 


58 Long and earnest discussions on these topics are detailed in Hop- 
kins’ Puritans, Wol. I. Chaps. VIII., [X., XII., XIII, and in an- 
thorities there cited. Comp. Stillingfleet, Irenicum, p. 149, Am. ed. 

59 Neal’s History of Puritans, I. p. 90. Hetherington’s History of 
Westminster Divines, p. 21. 


316 Tis PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


modified so as to unite the Protestant idea of forgiveness of 
sin by God alone with the popish absolution by the priest ; 
in the endless reiterations of the Lord’s Prayer; in the in- 
ordinate prominence that is given to liturgical forms; in 
the qualified and cautious phraseology of the communion 
service, and the special care that all the consecrated bread 
and wine shall be eaten and drunk, so that none of it shall be 
carried out of the church,—a point upon which the papists 
are ridiculously superstitious.” These popish tenets are seen 
particularly in the baptismal regeneration of the liturgy, 
by which the child becomes “regenerate and grafted into 
the body of Christ’s church... .. We yield thee hearty 
thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath pleased thee to 
regenerate this infant with thy Holy Spirit, to receive him 
for thine own child by adoption.” 

The practical effect of this baptismal regeneration is 
illustrated by the following anecdote from the British 
Quarterly. One had fallen from his horse in hunting. His. 
physician, perceiving his case to be desperate, endeavored 
in vain to direct his patient to Christ. The next morning 
he was calm and hopeful, saying: “ Ah, doctor, you yester- 
day told me many things, but you did not tell me of what 
I have been reminded this morning—that in baptism I was 
made a member of Christ, a child of God, an inheritor of 
the kingdom of heaven.” He died quietly, resting on this 
hope.” 

The order of confirmation is so conducted as to confirm 
one in the delusion that he has become “regenerate by 


6° In the amendment of the liturgy, under Elizabeth, “ the words 
used in distributing the elements were so contrived as neither to 
offend the Popish, or Lutheran. or Zuinglian communicant.”—Hal- 
lam’s Const. Hist. Vol. I. p. 150, note. Very catholic and accommo- 
dating ! 


61 British Quarterly, Jan., 1868, p. 22. 


PRAYERS OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 317 


water and the Holy Ghost,” through the instrumentality of this 
rite, rather than by that grace which is the gift of God. 
The burial service, also, is exceedingly objectionable: “For- 
asmuch as it hath pleased Almighty God, of his great 
mercy, to take unto himself the soul of our deceased brother 
here departed, we therefore commit his body to the ground; 
earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust, in sure and cer- 
tain hope of the resurrection to eternal life through our Lord 
Jesus Christ.” This is said of every one alike, however 
profligate his life, however hopeless his death. In the 
American service, instead of this, at the grave is said or 
sung, “I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, 
‘Write, From henceforth blessed are the dead who die in 
the Lord; even so, saith the Spirit, for they rest from their 
labors.’” Rey. xiv. 18. The practical influence of the 
burial service is apparent from the following remark of 
Archbishop Whately: “I have known a person, in speaking 
. of a deceased neighbor, whose character had been irreligious 
and profligate, remark how great a comfort it was to hear 
the words of the funeral service read over her, ‘ because, 
poor woman, she had been such a bad liver.’”® 

The London Quarterly, January, 1868, relates that when 
the burial service was read over a poor prostitute at her 
grave, one of her companions was heard to say to another, 
with an oath, “Nan, there is no fear, then, for us, for she 
was a precious deal worse than we are.” 

In ordination the bishop, according to the ritualistic 
theory and the natural import of the terms, does not merely 
pray for the gift of the Holy Spirit in these words, horrendi 
carminis—Receive the Holy Spirit—but as a minister of 
grace actually communicates the gift of the Holy Ghost ; 
and in the absolution the priest, by divine authority com- 
mitted to him, assumes to absolve the penitent from sin, all 


® Errors of Romanism, p, 55, 
21 # 


818 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


which is a close assimilation, a near approach to the blas- 
phemies of popery, and a severe impeachment of the Epis- 
copal prayer-book. 

A numerous and influential party of the Episcopal 
Church in this country have recently published a manifesto, 
in which they “say that the essential principle of High 
Church tendencies is an entire subversion of the Protestant 
and evangelical character of our Reformed Church. It 
transforms the ministry of the gospel into a priesthood ; 
baptism into a magical rite; the Lord’s Supper into the 
sacrifice of the mass; evangelical liberty into bondage to 
manifold observances and ceremonies; and the one church 
of Christ, “the blessed company of all faithful people,” into 
the body of those who recognize and conform to a mere 
sacerdotal system. They believe, also, that the present 
crisis of Protestantism demands a higher degree of sym- 
pathy and co-operation among the various evangelical 
bodies into which they are divided.” 

A devoted churchman has recently published an able 
pamphlet on the “ Romanizing germs ” in the prayer-book: 
“Certain seminal doctrines, which, being planted and tak- 
ing root, in due time spring up and bear Romanism as their 
fruit. It may be modified by the soil which nourishes it, 
and by the circumstances of its growth. It is Romanism 
still.” 

Three principal germs or seeds of Romanism in the 
prayer-book are indicated by the author: 

1. The Bible is not the sole rule of faith. 

2. The ministry is an exclusive priesthood, with super- 
natural powers. 

3. The sacraments, when administered by this priesthood, 
are of singular efficacy. 

“In view of these facts, we are forced to regard the 
prayer-book as the fountain whence flows that stream of 


PRAYERS OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 919 


Romanizing influence which is rapidly growing into a 
mighty river, and with its many branches penetrating our 
whole church. Thus our author writes in sympathy with 
others of the clergy who ‘regard with alarm the influence 
of the pare τος upon many of the souls committed to 
their charge.’ 

However many of he Episcopal Church may repudiate 
the semi-popish delusion of Puseyism, which has come up 
over the length and breadth of the land, it is indirectly 
supported, if not plainly taught, in her ritual. The prayer- 
book was a sinful compromise with the corruptions of the 
Church of Rome. “The scheme was merely to rob the 
Babylonian enchantress of her ornaments; to transfer the 
full cup of her sorceries to other hands, spilling as little as 
possible by the way. The Catholic doctrines and rites were 
to be retained in the Church of England.” ® 

The high ritualists of England recently boasted before the 
Royal Commission that they are “a large and increasing, if 
not actually the largest, party in the church, the only true 
and conscientious members of the English Church;” “that 
they are in perfect harmony with the prayer-book and the 
practice of the earlier church; that they are endeavoring to 
assimilate both the doctrines and the practice of the Eng- 
lish Church to that of Rome by catholicizing the church, 
and by every means pushing on this great catholic revival 
to reunite this severed branch again with the true Catholic 
Church.” Their assimilation to the Church of Rome is 
apparent in the following particulars : 

1. In restoring the ancient vestments of the bishops and 
the other clergy. 

2. The two lights on the altar. 

3. The incense. 

ὁ Macaulay’s Review of Hallam’s Constitutional History. See in 
the Appendix a further illustration of this, 


990 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


4, The mixed chalice. 

5. The eastward position, in front of the altar, of the 
priest and his assistants in the celebration of the com- 
munion. 

6. The use of the wafer-bread. 

7. The presence of the faithful for what is styled “ spirit- 
ual communion.” | 

8. The elevation of the consecrated elements for the pur- 
pose of adoration. 

“Then, rising, the celebrant should at once elevate it 
with the first finger and thumb of both hands for the wor- 
ship of the faithful while he is saying, Do this in remem- 
brance of me.” ™ 

The celebrated Dr. Wiseman expresses in the liveliest 
terms his gratification at “the movement” of the Oxford 
Tractarians “ toward Catholic ideas and Catholic feelings.” 
He has “watched its progress with growing interest,” be- 
cause he “saw in it the surest guarantee and principle of 
success. The course which we (papists) ought to pursue 
seems simple and clear: to admire and bless, and, at the 
same time, to second and favor, as far as human means can, 
the course which God’s providence has opened and is _ pur- 
suing, but to be careful how we thwart it. It seems to me 
impossible to read the works of the Oxford divines, and 
especially to follow them chronologically, without discover- 
ing a daily approach toward our holy church, both in doe- 
trine and affectionate feeling. Our saints, our popes, our 
rites and ceremonies, offices, nay, our very rubrics are pre- 
cious in their eyes, far, alas! beyond what many of us con- 


sider them.” ® 


64 London Quarterly, Jan., 1868. Methodist London Quarterly, 
Oct., 1867. 
® Cited in Rey. H. H. Beamish’s Letter to Dr. Pusey, p. 9. 


ΙΑ ἜΤ: ΧἪ: 
PSALMODY OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


THE singing of spiritual songs constituted, from the be- 
ginning, an interesting and important part of religious wor- 
ship in the primitive church. The course of our remarks 
on this subject will lead us to consider: 


I. The argument for Christian psalmody as a part of 
religious worship. 

II. The mode of singing in the ancient church. 

III. The changes in the psalmody of the church. 


I. Argument for the psalmody of the primitive church. 

1. From reason. 

Praise is the appropriate language of devotion. A fer- 
vent spirit of devotion instinctively seeks to express itself 
in song. In the strains of poetry, joined with the melody 
of music, it finds an easy and natural utterance of its ele- 
vated emotions. Can it be doubted, then, that that Spirit 
which was shed abroad upon the disciples after our Lord’s 
ascension would direct them to the continued use of the 
sacred psalmody of their own Scriptures, indited by the 
inspiration of the same Spirit? Is it unreasonable to sup- 
pose that the glad spirit with which they continued praising 
God might direct them to indite other spiritual songs to 
the praise of their Lord, whose wondrous life and death so 
employed their contemplations and whose love so inspired 
their hearts? The opinion has been expressed by Grotius, 

0 # 321 


ὦ THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


and is supported by many others, that we have, in Acts 
iv. 24-30, an epitome of such an early Christian hymn to 
Christ." 

2. From analogy. 

The singing of songs constituted a great part of the re- 
ligious worship of all ancient nations. In all their religious 
festivals and in their temples those pagan nations sung to 
the praise of their idol gods.” The worship of the Jews, 
not only in the temple, but in their synagogues and in their 
private dwellings, was celebrated with sacred hymns to God. 
Many of the loftiest, sweetest strains of Hebrew poetry were 
sung by their sacred minstrels on such occasions. Christ 
himself, in his final interview with his disciples before his 
crucifixion, sung with them the customary paschal songs at 
the institution of the sacrament,’ and by his example sanc- 
tified the use of sacred songs in the Christian church. All 
analogy drawn from other forms of religious worship, pagan 
and Jewish, requires us to ascribe to the primitive Chris- 
tians the use of spiritual songs in their public devotions. 

3. From Scripture. 

The same is clearly indicated in the writings of the New 
Testament. 


* Comp. Augusti, Denkwiirdigkeiten, Vol. V. p. 248. 
2 Semper id est cordi musis, semperque poetis 
Ut divos celebrent, laudes celebrentque virorum 
‘Yuveiv ἀϑανάτους, ὑμνεὶν ἀγαϑῶν κλέα ἀνδρῶν. 
Theocritus, cited by Gerbert, Musica Saera, T. 1. 
Pref. Comp. 61, 2 5, in which are many 
references of a similar kind. 

* The collect for such occasions is comprised in Psalms exiii.—cxviii., 
the first two before the paschal supper, and the remainder after it. The 
theory has been advanced, but without reason, that Christ himself in- 
dited the hymn on this oceasion. Neither is it necessary to suppose 
that all the hymns above-mentioned were sung by him and the dis- 
ciples at this time. 


PSALMODY OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 323 


Without doubt, in the opinion of Minter,‘ the gift of the 
Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost was accompanied with 
poetic inspiration, to which the disciples gave utterance in 
the rhapsodies of spiritual songs, Acts 11. 4, 19, 47. The 
opinion of Grotius and others with reference to Acts iv. 
24-50) has already been mentioned. But there are other 
passages which clearly indicate the use of religious songs in 
the worship of God. Paul and Silas, lacerated by the cruel 
scourging which they had received, and in close confinement 
in the inner prison, prayed and sang praises to God at mid- 
night, Acts xvi. 25. The use of psalms and hymns and 
spiritual songs, moreover, is directly enjoined upon the 
churches by the apostle as an essential part of religious de- 
votions, Col. 11.16; Eph. vy 14,19. The latter epistle was 
a circular letter to the Gentile churches of Asia;° and, 
therefore, in connection with that to the church at Colosse, 
is explicit authority for the use of Christian psalmody in 
the religious worship of the apostolical churches.® 

The use of such psalmody was not restricted merely to 
the public worship of God. In connection with the passage 
from Ephesians, the apostle warns those whom he addresses 
against the use of wine and the excesses to which it leads, 
with reference to those abuses which dishonored their sacra- 
mental supper and love-feasts. In opposition to the vain 
songs which, in such excesses, they might be disposed to 
sing, they are urged to the sober, religious use of psalms 
and hymns and spiritual songs. 

The phraseology indicates that they were not restricted 
to the use of the psalms of David merely, as in the Jewish 


4Com. Miinter, Metrisch. Uebersetz. der Offenbar. Johann. Vor- 
rede, 8. 17. 

5 Neander’s Apost. Kirch. I. 450, 3d ed. 

6 All this is shown at length by J. G. Walch, De Hymnis Ecclesiae 
Apostolicae. 


924 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


worship, but were at liberty to employ others of appropriate 
religious character in their devotions. The Corinthians 
were accustomed to make use of songs composed for the 
occasion, 1 Cor. xiv. 26. And though the apostle had 
occasion to correct their disorderly proceedings, it does not 
appear that he forbade the use of such songs. On the con- 
trary, there is the highest probability that the apostolic 
churches did not restrict themselves simply to the use of 
the Jewish Psalter. 

Grotius and others have supposed that some fragments 
of these early hymns are contained not only, as above men- 
tioned, in Acts, but perhaps also in 1 Tim. iii. 16. Some- 
thing like poetic antithesis they have imagined to be con- 
tained in James i. 17; 1 Tim. i. 1; 2 Tim. ii. 11-13. The 
expression in Revelation, “I am Alpha and Omega, the 
first and the last,” has been ascribed to the same origin, as 
has also Rev. iv. 8, together with the song of Moses and the 
Lamb, Rev. xv. 3, and the songs of the elders and the beasts, 
Rev. v. 9-14. Certain parts of the book itself have been 
supposed to be strictly poetical, and may have been used 
as such in Christian worship, such as Rey. 1. 4-8; xi. 15-19; 
xv. ὃ, 4; xxi. 1-8; xxi. 10-18. But the argument is not 
conclusive; and all the learned criticism, the talent and 
the taste that have been employed on this point leave us 
little else than uncertain conjecture on which to build an 
hypothesis. 

4. From history. 

The earliest authentic record on this subject is the cele- 
brated letter from Pliny to Trajan, just at the close of the 
apostolic age, A. D. 103,104. In the investigations which 
he instituted against the Christians of his period, he dis- 
covered, among other things, that they were accustomed to 
meet before day to offer praise to Christ as God, or as a 


PSALMODY OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 325 


God, as some contend that it should be rendered.’ The 
expression is somewhat equivocal, and might be used with 
reference to the ascription of praise in prayer or in song. 
But it appears that these Christians rehearsed their carmen 
invicem alternately, as if in responsive songs, according to 
the ancient custom of singing in the Jewish worship. Ter- 
tullian, only a century later, evidently understood the pas- 
sage to be descriptive of this mode of worshiping God and 
Christ, for he says that Pliny intended to express nothing 
else than assemblies before the dawn of the morning, for 
singing praise to Christ and to God, coetus antelucanos, ad 
canendum Christo et Deo.’ Eusebius also gives the passage 
a similar interpretation, saying that Pliny could find noth- 
ing against them save that, arising at the dawn of the morn- 
ing, they sang hymns to Christ as God, Πλὴν τό γε ἅμα τῇ 
ἕω διεγειρομένους τὸν Χριστὸν Θεοῦ δίχην ὁμνεῖν Viewed in 
this light, it becomes evidence of the use of Christian psalm- 
ody among the Christians immediately subsequent to the 
age of the apostles.” Tertullian himself also distinctly tes- 
tifies to the use of songs to the praise of God by the primi- 
tive Christians.. Every one, he says, was invited in their 
public worship to sing unto God, according to his ability, 
either from the Scriptures or de proprio ingenio, one indited 
by himself, according to the interpretation of Mtinter. What- 
ever may be the meaning of this phrase, the passage clearly 
asserts the use of Christian psalmody in their religious wor- 
ship. Again, he speaks of singing in connection with the 
reading of the Scriptures, exhortations and prayer in public 
worship.” 


7 Carmen Christo quasi Deo dicere secum invicem.—Epist. Lib. 
105.97. 
8 Apolog. 6. 2. ® Eccl. Hist. Lib. 3, 32. 
10 Miinter, Metrisch. Offenbar. S. 25. 
11 De Anima, ec. 9. 
28 


326 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


Justin Martyr also mentions the songs and hymns of the 
Ephesian Christians. “ We manifest our gratitude to him 
by worshiping him in spiritual songs and hymns, praising 
him for our birth, for our health, for the vicissitudes of the 
seasons and for the hopes of immortality.” ” 

Eusebius also has left on record the important testimony 
of an ancient historian at the close of the second century: 
“Who knows not the writings of Irenaeus, Melito and others 
which exhibit Christ as God and man? And how many 
songs and odes of the brethren there are, written from the 
beginning, az ἀρχῆς, by believers, which offer praise to 
Christ as the Word of God, ascribing divinity to him!” ” 
This passage not only presents a new and independent tes- 
timony to the use of spiritual songs in the Christian church 
from the remotest antiquity to the praise of Christ as divine, 
but it shows that these in great numbers had been com- 
mitted to writing, as 1t appears, for continued use. So that 
we here have evidence of the existence of a Christian hymn- 
book from the beginning. 

The testimony of Origen, A. D. 254, again, of the church 
of Alexandria, is to the same effect. In answer to the 
charge of Celsus, that the Christians worshiped the great 
God and sang hymns also to the sun and to Minerva, he 
says, ‘‘ We know the contrary, for these hymns are to him 


12 Apol.c. 13. Justin Martyr wrote, as is supposed, also a work 
on Christian psalmody, the loss of which we have deeply to deplore. 
Living within half a century of the age of the apostles, it would be 
particularly interesting to receive from him a treatise on this interest- 
ing subject. The references are from Semisch, Euseb. Eccl. Hist. Lib. 
4, ο. 18, and Phot. Bibl. Cod. Vol. I. p. 95, ὁ ἐπὶγραφόμενος ψάλτης. 
Comp. Fabric. Bibliothec. Graec. ed Harl. VII. p. 67. 

18 ἸΙσαλμοὶ δὲ ὅσοι καὶ ῷδαὶ ἀδελφῶν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς ὑπὸ πιστῶν γραφεῖσαι, 
τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν Χριστὸν ὑμνοῦσι Veodoyovvtec.—LEccl. Hist. Lib. 
5, 28. 


PSALMODY OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 327 


who alone is called God over all, and to his only-begotten 
[Son ].” ** 

Christ, the only-begotten of the Father, is the burden of 
these primitive songs and hymns. Here is he set forth doc- 
trinally, ϑευλογιχώς, as the incarnate Word of God, as God 
and man. His mediatorial character was the subject of the 
songs of these apostolical and primitive saints. This sacred 
theme inspired the earliest anthems of the Christian church ; 
and as it has ever been the subject of her sweetest melodies 
and loftiest strains, so doubtless will it continue to be until 
the last of her ransomed sons shall end the songs of the 
redeemed on earth, and wake his harp to nobler, sweeter 
strains in heaven.” 

One hymn of the primitive church has come down to us 
entire. It is found in the Paedagogue of Clement of Alexan- 
dria, a work bearing date about one hundred and fifty years 
from the time of the apostles; but it is ascribed to another, 
and assigned to an earlier origin. It is wanting in some of 
the manuscripts of Clement. It contains figurative language 
and forms of expression which were familiar to the church 
at an earlier date; and, for various reasons, is regarded by 
Miinter and Bull” as a venerable relic of the early church, 


14 Against Ceisum, Lib. 8, c. 67, p. 792, ed. Ruaei: ὕμνους γὰρ εἴς 
μόνον τὸν ἐπὶ πᾶσι λεγόμενον ϑεὸν, καὶ TOV μονογενῆ αὐτοῦ. 

15 Whatever may be the doctrinal truth in regard to the character 
of Christ, it is abundantly evident that he was worshiped as divine in 
the prayers and psalmody of the primitive church. See the author’s 
Ancient Christianity, p. 328. This truth, again, is confirmed by the 
fact mentioned by Neander, that, “In the controversy with the Uni- 
tarians, at the close of the second and beginning of the third century, 
their opponents appealed to those hymns in which, aforetime, Christ 
had been worshiped as God.”—Allgem. Kirch. Hist., I. 523, 2d ed. 
Tr. I. p. 304. 

16 Metrisch. Offenbar., 5. 32. Bull’s Defensio Fidei Nicaenae, 2 111, 
c. 2, p. 316, cited by Miinter. 


328 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


which has escaped the ravages of time, and still remains a 
solitary remnant of the Christian psalmody of that early 
age. It is certainly very ancient, and the earliest that has 
been preserved and transmitted to us. It is a hymn to 
Christ, and shows what was the strain of these devotions. 
We see in it the heart of primitive piety laboring to give 
utterance to its emotions of wonder, love and gratitude, in 
view of the offices and character of the great Redeemer.” 

The songs of the primitive Christians were not restricted 
to their public devotions. In their social circles and 
around their domestic altars they worshiped God in the 
sacred song; and in their daily occupations they were 
wont to relieve their toil and refresh their spirits by renew- 
ing their favorite songs to Zion. Persecuted and afflicted 
—in solitary cells of the prison, in the more dismal abodes 
of the mines to which they were doomed, or as wandering 
exiles in foreign countries—they forgot not to sing the 
Lord’s song in the prison or the mine, or the strange lands 
to which they were driven.” 


Il. Mode of singing in the ancient church. 

Both the Jews in their temple-service and the Greeks in 
their idol-worship were accustomed to sing with the accom- 
paniment of instrumental music. The converts to Chris- 
tianity accordingly must have been familiar with this mode 


1 The reader will find this hymn in the author’s Ancient Chris- 
tianity, pp. 334, 335. It is an anapaestic ode, with occasional inter- 
changes of spondees and dactyls, which this measure admits. It is 
supposed also to consist of parts, which may have been sung in re- 
sponses. The divisions are as follows: lines, 1-10, 11-28, 29-45, 
46-63. 

18. Comp. Jamison, cited in Christian Antiquities, p. 875. It would 
not be difficult to adduce original authorities to this effect, but we 
must confine ourselves more particularly to the devotional psalmudy 
of their public worship. 


PSALMODY OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 329 


of singing. The word, φαλλεῖν, which the apostle uses in 
Eph. v. 19, is supposed by critics to indicate that they sang 
with such accompaniments. The same is supposed by some 
to be intimated by the golden harps which John, in the 
Apocalypse, put into the hands of the four-and-twenty elders. 
But it is generally admitted that the primitive Christians 
employed no instrumental music in their religious worship. 
Neither Ambrose, nor Basil, nor Chrysostom,” in the noble 
encomiums which they severally pronounce upon music, 
make any mention of instrumental music. Basil condemns 
it as ministering only to the depraved passions of men.” 

It seems from the epistle of Pliny that the Christians, of 
whom he speaks, sang alternately, in responses. The ancient 
hymn from Clement, above mentioned, seems to be con- 
structed with reference to this method of singing. There 
is, also, an ancient but groundless tradition extant in 
Socrates” that Ignatius was the first to introduce this style 
of music in the church at Antioch. It was familiar to the 
Jews, who often sang responsively in the worship of the 
temple. In some instances the same style of singing may 
have been practiced in the primitive church. But respon- 
sive singing is generally allowed not to have been in com- 
mon use during the first three hundred years of the Christian 
era. This mode of singing was common in the theatres and 
temples of the Gentiles, and for this reason was generally 
disearded by the primitive Christians.” It was first prac- 
ticed in the Syrian churches; it was introduced into the 


19 Ambrose, in Ps. 1, Praef. p.740. Basil, in Ps. 1, Vol. II. p. 713. 
Chrysostom, in Ps. 41, Vol. Y. p. 181. 

20 Hom. 4, Vol. 1. p. 33. 

21 Eccl. Hist. Lib. 6, ο. 8. 

22 Theodorus Mopsues, quoted by Nicetas Momin. Thesaur. Ortho- 
dox, Lib. 5, c. 30, in Biblioth. Vet. Pat. XXV. p. 161.—Augusti, 
Denkwiirdigkeiten, Vol. V. p. 278. 

23 # 


330 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


Eastern churches by Flavian and Diodorus in the middle 
of the fourth century ;” from them it was transferred by 
Ambrose, A. D. 370, to those of the West, and it soon came 
into general use in these churches under the name of the 
Ambrosian style of music.” 

Sacred music must, at this time, have consisted only of a 
few simple airs which could easily be learned, and which, 
by frequent repetition, became familiar to all. An ornate 
and complicated style of music would have been alike in- 
compatible with the circumstances of these Christian wor- 
shipers and uncongenial with the simplicity of their primi- 
tive forms.” 

In their songs of Zion, both old and young, men and 
women, bore a part. Their psalmody was the joint act of 
the whole assembly in unison. Such is the testimony of 
Hilary, A. D. 555.° Ambrose remarks that the injunction 
of the apostle, forbidding women to speak in public, relates 
not to singing, “ for this is delightful in every age and suited 
to every sex.” The authority of Chrysostom is also to the 
same effect. ‘It was the ancient custom, as it is still with 
us, for all to come together, and unitedly to join in singing. 
The young and the old, rich and poor, male and female, 
bond and free, all join in one song... .. All worldly dis- 
tinctions here cease, and the whole congregation form one 
general chorus.” ἢ 
Kach was invited, at pleasure, and according to his ability, 


23 Theodoret, Eccl. Hist. Lib. 2, c. 19, p. 622. 

24 August. Confess. 9, ο. 7. Paulini, Vet. Ambros. p. 4. Comp 
Augusti, Denkwiirdigkeiten, Vol. V. p. 300. 

* Augusti, Denkwiirdigkeiten, Vol. V. p. 288. 

76 Comment. in Ps. 65, p. 174. 

7 Tn Ps. 1, Praef. 741. Comp. Hexaemeron, Lib. 3, ὁ. 5, p. 42. 

8 Hom. 11, Vol. XII. p. 349. Hom. 36, in 1 Cor. Vol. X. p. 340. 
Comp. Gerbert, Musica Sacra, Lib. 1, 2 11, who has collected many 
other authorities to the same effect. 


PSALMODY OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 331 


to lead their devotions in a sacred song indited by himself. 

Such was the custom in the Corinthian church. Such was 
still the custom in the age of Tertullian, to which reference 
has already been made. Augustine also refers to the same 
usage, and ascribes to divine inspiration” the talent which 
they manifested in this extemporaneous psalmody. 

Such was the psalmody of the early church. It consisted 
in part of the psalms of David, and in part of hymns com- 
posed for the purpose, and expressive of love and praise to 
God and to Christ.» Few in number, and sung in rude 
and simple airs, they yet had wonderful power over those 
primitive saints. The sacred song inspired their devotions 
both in the public and private worship of God. At their 
family board it quickened their gratitude to God, who gave 
them their daily bread. It enlivened their domestic and 
social intercourse, it relieved the weariness of their daily 
labor, it cheered them in solitude, comforted them in afflic- 
tion and supported them under persecution. “Go where 
you will,” says Jerome, “the ploughman at his plough sings 
his joyful hallelujahs, the busy mower regales himself with 
his psalms, and the vine-dresser is singing one of the songs 
of David. Such are our songs—our love-songs as they are 
called—the solace of the shepherd in his solitude, and of 
the husbandman in his toil.” Fearless of reproach, of 
persecution and of death, they continued, in the face of 
their enemies, to sing their sacred songs in the streets and 
market-places and at the martyr’s stake. Eusebius declares 
himself an eye-witness to the fact that, under their persecu- 
tions in Thebais, “they continued to their latest breath to 
sing psalms and hymns and. thanksgivings to the God of 


29 Cited by Miinter, Metrisch. Offenbar. The sentiments of Grotins 
also are to the same effect. . 

30 Neander, Allgem. Kirch. Hist. I. 5. 523, 2d ed. Tr. I. p. 304, 

31 Ep. 17, ad Marcellam, Cited in Arnold’s Abbildung, 8. 174. 


oon THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


heaven.” * And the same is related of many others among’ 
the early martyrs. We are informed by Chrysostom that 
it was an ancient custom to sing the 140th psalm every 
evening, and that the Christians continued through life the 
constant singing of this psalm.” The song of Zion was a 
sacred fountain, which, like living waters in a desert, sus- 
tained in this barren wilderness the growth and vigor of 
primitive piety, and overspread with perpetual verdure the 
vineyard of the Lord. On this point the sentiments of 
Herder are peculiarly interesting, and no one can speak 
with more authority respecting the psalmody of the ancient 
church. After remarking that the earliest hymns of the 
Latin church exhibit little poetic talent or classic taste, he 
adds: ‘“ But who can deny their influence and power over 
the soul? These sacred hymns of many hundred years’ 
standing, and yet at every repetition still new and unim- 
paired in interest, what a blessing have they been to poor 
human nature! They go with the solitary into his cell, 
and attend the afflicted in distress, in want and to the grave. 
While singing these one forgets his toil, and his fainting, 
sorrowful spirit. soars in heavenly joys to another world. 
Back to earth he comes to labor, to toil, to suffer in silence 
and to conquer. How rich the boon, how great the power 
!”“* He proceeds to say that there is in 
these an efficacy and power which lighter songs, which 
philosophy itself, can never haye—a power which is not 
55 0]: Hist, ον. 
83 Chrysost. in Ps. 140, Tom. 5, p. 427. 


** Augustine gives the following account of the power of this music 
over him on the occasion of his baptism: “Oh how freely was I made 


of these hymns 


to weep by these hymns and spiritual songs, transported by the voices 
of the congregation sweetly singing! The melody of their voices filled 
my ear, and divine truth was poured into my heart. Then burned 
the sacred flame of devotion in my soul, and gushing tears flowed from 
my eyes, as well they might.’”—Confess. Lib. 9, c. 6, p. 118. 


PSALMODY OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 333 


ascribable to anything new or striking in sentiment or 
powerful in expression. And then rises the question, 
“ Whence, then, have they this mighty power? What is 
it that so moves us?” ‘To which he replies, Simplicity and 
truth. “ Embodying the great and simple truths of religion, 
they speak the sentiment of a universal creed—they are the 
expression of one heart and one faith. The greater part 
are suitable to be sung on all occasions and daily to be 
repeated. Others are adapted to certain festivals; and as 
these return in endless succession, so the sacred song per- 
petually repeats the Christian faith. Though rude and 
void of refined taste, they all speak to the heart, and, by 
ceaseless repetition, sink deep the impress of truth. Like 
these, the sacred song should ever be the simple offering of 
nature, an incense of sweet odors, perpetually recurring 
with a fragrance that suffers no abatement.” Such is the 
simple power of truth wrought into the soul by the hallowed 
devotions of the sanctuary. Striking the deepest principles 
of our nature, stirring the strongest passions of the heart, 
and mingling with our most tender recollections and dear- 
est hopes, is it strange that the simple truths and rude airs 
of the sacred songs should deeply move us? So presented, 
they only grow in interest by continued repetition. And 
in the lapse of years these time-hallowed associations do 
but sink the deeper in the soul: 


“Time but the impression stronger makes, 
As streams their channels deeper wear.” 


III. Changes in the psalmody of the church. 

In the course of a few centuries from the fourth onward, 
several variations were introduced in the mode of perform- 
ing this part of public worship, the effect of which was to 


88 Briefe zur Beférderung der Humanitat. 7, Samml.8. 28, seq. Cited 
by Augusti, Denkwiirdigkeiten, Vol. V. p. 296, 297. 


334 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


withdraw the people from any direct participation in it, 
and to destroy in a great degree its moral power. 

1. The first of these changes has been already mentioned, 
singing alternately by responses. This was introduced into 
the Syrian churches, afterward into the Eastern church, 
and finally into the Western by Ambrose. In this the 
congregation still bore some part, all uniting in the chorus 
and singing the responses. 

2. The appointment of singers as a distinct class of officers 
in the church, for this part of religious worship marks an- 
other alteration in the psalmody of the church. These were 
first appointed in the fourth century. But the people con- 
tinued, for a century or more, to enjoy their ancient privi- 
lege of all singing together. 

3. Various restrictions were from time to time laid upon 
the use of hymns of human composition in distinction from 
the inspired psalms of David. Heretics of every name had 
their sacred hymns, suited to their own religious belief, 
which had great effect in propagating their errors. To re- 
sist their encroachments, the Established Church was driven 
to the necessity either of cultivating and improving its own 
psalmody, or of opposing its authority to stay the progress 
of this evil. The former was the expedient of Ambrose, 
Hilary, Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom, Augustine, ete. 
But the other alternative in turn was also attempted. The 
churches by ecclesiastical authority were restricted to the 
use of the Psalter and other canonical songs of the Scrip- 
tures. All hymns of merely human composition were pro- 
hibited as of a dangerous tendency and unsuitable to the 
purposes of public worship. The synod of Laodicea, A. Ὁ. 
344-346, c. 59, passed a decree to that effect. The decree 
was not, however, fully enforced. But this and similar 
efforts on the part of the clergy had the effect to discourage 
the use of such religious songs. The Arians of that age 


PSALMODY OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 335 


also opposed these ancient sacred hymns for a different 
reason, and cultivated a higher style of sacred music. 

4. The introduction of instrumental music. The ten- 
dency of this was to secularize the music of the church, and 
to encourage singing by a choir. Such musical accompani- 
ments were gradually introduced, but they can hardly be 
assigned to a period earlier than the fifth and sixth centu- 
ries. Organs were unknown in church until the eighth or 
ninth century. Previous to this they had their place in the 
theatre, rather than in the church. They were never re- 
garded with favor in the Eastern church, and were vehe- 
mently opposed in many places in the West. In Scotland 
no organ is allowed to this day, except in a few Episcopal 
churches. “In the English convocation, held A. D. 1562, 
in Queen Elizabeth’s time, for settling of the liturgy, the 
retaining of organs was carried only by a casting vote.” 

5. The introduction of profane, secular music into the 
church was one of the principal means of corrupting the 
psalmody of the church. An artificial, theatrical style of 
music, having no affinity to the worship of God, began to 
take the place of those solemn airs which before had in- 
spired the devotions of his people. The music of the 
theatre was transferred to the church; which, accordingly, 
became the scene of theatrical pomp and display, rather 
than the house of prayer and of praise, to inspire, by its . 
appropriate and solemn rites, the spiritual worship of God. 
The consequences of indulging this depraved taste for secu- 
lar music in the church are exhibited by Neander in the 
following extract: “We have to regret that, both in the 
Eastern and the Western church, their sacred music had 
already assumed an artificial and theatrical character, and 
was so far removed from its original simplicity that even in 
the fourth century the Abbot Pambo of Egypt complained 
that heathen melodies [accompanied as it seems with the 


336 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


action of the hands and the feet] had been introduced into 
their church psalmody.”* Isidorus of Pelusium also com-— 
plained of the theatrical singing, especially that of the 
women, which, instead of inducing penitence for sin, tended 
much more to awaken sinful desires.” Jerome, also, in re- 
marking upon Eph. v. 19, says: “ May all hear it whose 
business it is to sing in the church. Not with the voice, 
but with the heart, we sing praises to God. Not like the 
comedians should they raise their sweet and liquid notes to 
entertain the assembly with theatrical songs and melodies 
in the church; but the fear of God, piety and the knowledge 
of the Scriptures should inspire our songs. Then would 
not the voice of the singers, but the utterance of divine 
word, expel the evil spirit from those who, like Saul, are 
possessed with it. But instead of this, that same spirit is 
invited rather to the possession of those who have converted 
the house of God into a pagan theatre.” 

The assembly continued to bear some part in the psalmody 
of the church even after this had become a cultivated 
theatrical art, for the practice of which the singers were 
appointed and trained as a distinct order in the church. 
The congregation may have continued for a time to join in 
the chorus or in responses. But is it conceivable that a 
promiscuous assembly could unite in such theatrical music 
as is here the subject of complaint? Music, executed in 
this manner, was an art which must require in its perform- 
ers a degree of skill altogether superior to that which all 
the members of a congregation could be expected to possess. 


86 Μελῳδοῦσιν ἄσματα καὶ ῥυϑμίζουσιν ἠχοῦς σείουσι χεῖρας Kal μετα- 
βαίνουσι (βάλλουσι 3) πόδας .----ϑογρίοτεπ. Ecclesiastici, De Musica, T. 1, 
1784, p. 3. 

37 Tsidor. Pelus. C. 1, Ep. 90, Biblioth. Vet. Pat. Vol. VII. p. 548. 

88 Comment. in Ep. Eph. Lib. 3, α. 5, T. 4, p. 887, ed. Martianay. 
Cited in Allgem. Kirch. Gesch. 11. 5. 681, 2d ed. 


PSALMODY OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 99. 


6. The practice of sacred music, as an ornamental, culti- 
vated art, took it yet more completely from the people. It 
became an art which only a few could learn. The many, 
instead of uniting their hearts and their voices in the songs 
of Zion, could only sit coldly by as spectators. They might, 
indeed, unite in some simple chorus, and are generally un- 
derstood not to have been entirely excluded from all parti- 
cipation in the psalmody of the church until the sixth or 
seventh century. Gregory the Great was instrumental in 
bringing singing schools into repute, and after him Charle- 
magne. Organs came about this time into use. But in the 
early periods of the Christian church instrumental music 
was not in use in religious worship. 

7. The clergy eventually claimed the right of performing 
the sacred music as a privilege exclusively their own. This 
expedient shut out the people from any participation in this 
delightful part of public worship. 

Finally, the more effectually to exclude the people, the 
singing was in Latin. Where that was not the vernacular 
tongue, this rule was of necessity an effectual bar to the 
participation of the people in this part of public worship. 
Besides, the doctrine was industriously propagated that the 
Latin was the appropriate language of devotion, which be- 
came not the profane lips of the laity in these religious 
solemnities; but only those of the clergy, who had been 
consecrated to the service of the sanctuary. The Reforma- 
tion again restored to the people their ancient and inesti- 
mable right. But in the Roman Catholic Church it is still 
divided between the chants of the priests and the theatrical 
performances of the choir, which effectually pervert the de- 
votional ends of sacred music. 

29 


338 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


REMARKS. 


1. To aceomplish, in the happiest manner, the devotional 
ends of sacred music the congregation should unitedly join 
in it. 

In advancing an opinion so much opposed to the taste of 
the age, the writer has no expectation that it will be re- 
ceived with the consideration which, in his opinion, its 
importance demands. For he cannot resist the conviction 
that, in separating the congregation generally from a partici- 
pation in this delightful part of public worship, we have 
taken the most effectual measure, as did the Catholic clergy 
in the period which has passed under review, to destroy the 
devotional influence of sacred music. What, may we ask, 
was the secret of the magic charm of sacred music in the 
early Christian church? Whence its mighty influence over 
those primitive saints? It was that the great truths of re- 
ligion were embodied in their psalmody, and set to such 
simple airs that all could blend their voices and their hearts 
in the sacred song; and, though they may have exhibited 
little of what is denominated musical taste, or of the sym- 
phonies of a modern oratorio, they offered unto God the 
melody of the heart, by far the noblest praise. Their sacred 
songs became, as we have seen, the ballads of the people,” 
sung at all times and upon every occasion. Religious truth 
became inwrought into the very soul of these Christians by 
their sacred songs. It entered not only into their public 
devotions, but into their family worship, their domestic 
pleasures and their social entertainments. Thus religious 
truth addressed itself to the hearts of the people in a manner 


89 One has wisely said: “ Let me make the ballads of the people, 
and I care not who makes their Jaws.” But connected with religion 
their power is immensely increased. 


PSALMODY OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 339 


the most persuasive possible. It became associated, both 
with the most endearing recollections of the heart and its 
most hallowed associations. Will the music of our churches, 
however skillfully played upon the organ, or sweetly sung 
by a few select voices, ever so move the heart and mould 
the character of the whole society? No; like the cold cor- 
ruscations of the Northern Lights, it does but amuse and 
delight the spectator for a while and then passes away, 
leaving the bosom dark and cheerless as before. But when 
the music of the church is let down from the orchestra to 
the congregation below, and runs with its quickening in- 
fluence from man to man, until all feel their souls ascending 
in the song which they unitedly raise to God, then it is that 
the 


“Heart grows warm with holy fire, 
And kindles with a pure desire.” 


No one can witness the worship of the churches in Ger- 
many without being struck with the devotional influence 
of their psalmody. They are a nation of singers. Rarely 
is one seen in the church, whether old or young, who does 
not join in the song; and with an evident interest which 


40 The singing is the most devotional part of the religions worship 
of the Lutheran and Evangelical churches of Germany, and in pro- 
portion to the other parts of worship is extended to an inordinate 
length. For example, on one occasion in the ordinary services of the 
Sabbath, the singing before sermon was observed, by the writer, to 
occupy fifty minutes. In the course of this time two prayers were 
offered, neither of which occupied the space of three minutes, and two 
portions of Scripture were read, which did not occupy more than five 
minutes. All the prayers, including the litany, did not exceed ten 
minutes in length; while the singing employed near an hour. The 
prayers are liturgical forms to a great extent, briefly rehearsed at dif- 
ferent times by the clergyman, in which the congregation seem not 
to be deeply interested. The singing is the act of the congregation 
unitedly, with which they are never weary 
said, they never appear to be satisfied. 


with which, I had almost 


340 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


it has not been the good fortune of the writer often to wit- 
ness or to experience in the churches of America. In our 
country this subject is encompassed with intrinsic difficulties 
which we pass without remark. But were it possible ever 
to make the modification under consideration in our church- 
music, even at the expense of the musical skill and talent 
which are now displayed, we must believe that much would 
be gained to the devotional influence of our sacred music. 
What though, in humbler strains and more simple airs, the 
churches raise to God their sacred songs of praise? What 
if some discordant notes occasionally disturb the harmony 
of the music? if still they do but fulfill the apostolical in- 
junction, singing and making melody in their hearts to the 
Lord, the noblest, the best, the only true end of sacred 
music is accomplished. Such are the strains which He who 
inspires the songs of heaven delights most to hear: 


““Compered with these, Italian trills are tame; 
The tickled ears no heartfelt raptures raise.” 


We subjoin the remarks of Prof. B. B. Edwards upon 
the sacred psalmody of the Germans: “ In this delightful 
exercise the whole congregation, without exception, unite. 
Those who might have been wearied with the sermon were 
awakened in the hymn with the whole heart. The writer 
can never forget a spectacle of this kind which he saw in 
one of the old churches in Nuremberg. The great edifice 
was crowded, one-half of the audience, at least, standing. 
The sermon had been delivered in a fervent manner, and 
had apparently much interested the feelings of the audience. 
Immediately a powerful and well-toned organ sent its peals 
through all the corners and recesses of the cathedral, and 
in a moment every adult and child in the vast throng broke 
forth in praise to the Redeemer in one of those old hymns, 
mellowed by time, and which breathe not of earth, but of 


PSALMODY OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 34] 


heaven. The effect, at least upon a stranger, was over- 
powering. Nothing like it can be produced by a small 
choir, however scientifically trained. The performance of 
the latter must be comparatively dead, because, being so 
artistic or scientific, or so modern, or it has been subject to 
so many mutations, that few could join in it if they were 
permitted so to do. The music for a popular audience 
must be simple; and then, especially if a great multitude 
unite, it will often be affecting and sublime. The singing 
in German churches sometimes occupies an hour, or more 
than an hour.” 

2. Christian psalmody was one of the principal means of 
promoting the devotions of the primitive church. 

Enough remains on record in relation to this subject to 
show what interest these venerable saints and martyrs had 
in their sacred songs—enough to show what power their 
psalmody possessed to confirm their faith, to inspire their 
devotions, to bring them nigh to God and to arm them with 
more than mortal courage for the fiery conflict to which 
they were summoned in defence of their faith. Has this 
most interesting and important part of religious worship its 
just influence with us? Is its quickening power shed 
abroad over our assemblies like the spirit of heavenly 
grace, warming the cold heart into spiritual life and re- 
viving its languid affections, as if with a fresh anointing 
from on high? 

ὃ. Christian psalmody affords the happiest means of en- 
forcing the doctrinal truths of religion. 

Reason with man, and you do but address his understand- 
ing; you gain, it may be, his cold convictions. Embody 
the truth in a creed or confession of faith; to this he may 
also yield assent, and remain as unmoved as before. But 
express it in the sacred song. Let it mingle with his devo- 


tions in the sanctuary and in the family; let his most 
29 # 


342 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


endeared associations cluster around it as the central point, 
not only of his faith, but of his hopes, his joys; and what 
before was a speculative belief, has become his living senti- 
ment—the governing principle both of the understanding 
and the heart. The single book of psalms and hymns, 
therefore, does unspeakably more to form the doctrinal sen- 
timents of men than all the formularies, creeds and confes- 
sions of polemics and divines. ‘The one,” says Augusti, 
“is chiefly for the minister; the other is in the hands of 
the people, and is, as you may say, his daily creed.” The 
heart, in religion, as in everything else, governs the under- 
standing. The sacred song that wins the one fails not also 
to convince and to control the other. With great propriety, 
therefore, has the hymn-book long been styled the Layman’s 
Bible.” ; 

Every religious denomination, accordingly, has its hymn- 
book; and in ancient times the same was true of every re- 
ligious sect. The spiritual songs of the primitive Christians 
were almost exclusively of a doctrinal character. “In fact, 
almost all the prayers, doxologies and hymns of the ancient 
church are nothing else than prayers and supplications to 
the triune God or to Jesus Christ. They were generally 
altogether doctrinal. The prayers and psalms, of merely a 
moral character, which the modern church has in great 


41 Denkwiirdigkeiten, V. S. 411. 

Ὁ Augusti, Denkwiirdigkeiten, V.S. 411; also, 277. Augustine 
recognizes the same sentiment, as follows: Cum reminiscor lachrymas 
meas quas fudi ad cantus ecclesiae tuae in primordiis recuperatae fidei 
meae, et nunc, ipso quod moyeor, non cantu, sed rebus quae cantantur, 
cum liquida voce et convenientissima modulatione cantantur, magnam 
instituti hujus utilitatem rusus agnosco. Tamen cum mihi accidit ut 
me amplius cantus quam res quae canitur moyeat, poenaliter me pec- 
care confiteor, et tunc mallem non audire cantantem.— Confess. L. 10, 
6: 33, Vol. I. p. 141. 


PSALMODY OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 343 


abundance, in the ancient were altogether unknown.” * 


And yet modern Christians have not been inattentive to 
this mode of defending their faith. Their different collec- 
tions of psalms and hymns abound with those that are 
expressive merely of points of doctrine at the expense, often, 
of all poetical imagery or expression.“ 

4. Christian psalmody is one of the most efficient means 
of promulgating a religious system among a people. 

This was one of the earliest and must successful expedi- 
ents for spreading the ancient heresies of the church. Bar- 
dasanes, the famous Syrian Gnostic, in the latter part of the 
second century, made this the principal means of propa- 
gating his sentiments. He composed songs expressive of 
the tenets which he would inculcate, and adapted them to 
music to be sung by the people. His son, Harmonius, 
followed the example of his father; and such “was the 
influence of their efforts that the Syrian church was well 
nigh overrun with their errors.” *” And not only the Gnos- 
tics, but the Manicheans, the Donatists, and almost every 
heretical sect, employed, with surprising success, the same 
means of promulgating their tenets. Taught by their ex- 
ample, the orthodox finally sought, in the same manner, to 


43 Augusti, Denkwiirdigkeiten, Vol. V. p. 417. 

44 For example, the successive stanzas of one of the hymns in the 
Lutheran collection, begin, each, with one of the terms at the begin- 
ning of the creed: 1. I believe in God the Father, etc. 2. I believe 
in God the Son, ete. 3. I believe in God the Holy Ghost, ete. 

4 Composuit carmina et ea modulationibus aptabit, finxit psalmos 
induxitque metra, et mensuris ponderibusque distribuit voces. Ita 
propinavit simplicibus venenum dulcedine temperatum; aegroti 
quippe cibum recusabant salubrem. Davidem imitatus est, ut ejus 
pulchritudine ornaretur ejusque similitudine commendaretur. Centum 
et quinquaginta composuit hic quoque psalmos.—F'phraem Syrus, in 
Hymn 343, p. 553. Comp. Sozomen, ἢ. 6. 3, c. 16. Theodor. Lib. 4, 
ο. 29; also, I. c. 22. Denkwiirdigkeiten, Vol. V. S. 272, 273. 


3.4.4 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


resist the progress of their errors. Such were the efforts of 
Ephraem the Syrian, Hilary, Augustine, and others.” 
Luther well understood this method of propagating truth 
and refuting error, and employed it with a skillful hand. 
For his great work he possessed remarkable qualifications, 
seldom united in one man. Among his varied accomplish- 
ments, not the least important were his poetical and musical 
talents. He was taught music with the first rudiments of 
his native language; and when, as a wandering minstrel, 
he earned his daily bread by exercising his musical powers 
in singing before the doors of the rich in the streets of 
Magdeburg and Eisenach, he was as truly preparing for 
the future Reformer as when, a retired monk in the cloister 
at Erfurt, he was storing his mind with the truths of reve- 
lation, with which to refute the errors and expose the delu- 
sions of papacy. One of his earliest efforts at reform was 
the publication of a psalm-book, A. D. 1524, composed and 
set to music chiefly by himself.” The songs of Luther con- 
firmed the Christian’s faith and soothed the sufferings of 
the martyr at the stake. One of his earliest hymns he con- 
secrated to commemorate the martyrs of Brussels; and the 
whole Reformed church felt the sustaining influence of this 


46 Augusti, Denkwiirdigkeiten, Vol. V. S. 275, 276, 414, 415. For 
further information on this point, see J. Andr. Schmidt, De modo 
propagandi religionem par carmina. Helmst. 1720. 4to. 

47 This psalm-book is usually ascribed to Luther, though it bears 
not his name. It contained eight psalms, of which, however, but one 
bears his name. But he published, in 1525, two editions, the first con- 
taining sixteen, and the other forty. In the collection of sacred music 
in use by the Lutheran churches in Germany, consisting of two hun- 
dred and fifty-three tunes, twenty-five are ascribed to Luther, either as 
the author of them, or as having been revised by him and adapted to 
the use of the church, The authorship of a few is doubtful, though 
they are assigned to that age. 


PSALMODY OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 345 


single song which we give in the margin. His associate, 
Hans Sach, co-operated with him by publishing, in 1523, 
the “ Nightingale of Wittenberg.” His efforts at an earlier 
period at Nuremberg had great influence in promoting the 
work of the Reformation. ‘“ From a humble workshop, 
situated at one of the gates of the imperial city of Nurem- 
berg, proceeded sounds that resounded through all Ger- 
many, preparing the minds of men for a new era, and 
everywhere endearing to the people the great revolution 
that was then in progress. The spiritual songs of Hans 
Sachs, his Bible in verse, powerfully assisted this work. It 
would perhaps, be difficult to say to which it was most in- 
debted, the Prince, Elector of Saxony, administrator of the 
empire, or the shoemaker of Nuremberg!” 

The psalms of the church in the time of the Reformation 
were wholly of a doctrinal character. ‘Hymns merely 
inculcating moral truths, which are so abundant in modern 
collections, were unknown at this early period. As now in 


48 F'lung on the heedless winds 

Or on the waters cast, 

Their ashes shall be watched 
And gathered be at last. 

And from that scattered dust, 
Around us and abroad, 

Shall spring a plenteous seed 
Of witnesses for God. 


Jesus hath now received 
Their latest living breath,— 
Yet vain is Satan’s boast 
Of victory in their death. 
Still—still—though dead they speak, 
And trumpet-tongued proclaim 
To many a waking land, 
The one availing Name. 
—Cited from D’ Aubigné. 
Pp * 


946 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


symbols and catechisms we have an abstract of the Chris- 
tian faith, so then was the substance of the fundamental 
doctrines of the Christian faith embodied in their divine 
songs.” “” Weapons so simple were employed with surpris- 
ing effect by the great Reformer. Even his enemies ac- 
knowledged their hated power. “These hymns, many of 
which are manufactured in Luther’s own laboratory and 
sung in the vernacular tongue of the people, it is wonderful 
what power they have in propagating the doctrines of Lu- 
ther? Some of them doctrinal in their character, others 
imitating devotional psalms, they repeat and blazon abroad 
the faults of the Catholic Church, whether real or imagin- 
ary.”*? Such is the mighty power of sacred psalmody in 
propagating the Christian faith: 
“ These weapons of our holy war, 


Of what almighty force they are!” 


Have our missionaries employed with due diligence and 


47 Augusti, Denkwiirdigkeiten, Vol. V. 8S. 287. 

50 Cantilenae vernaculo idiomate, quarum plurimae ex ipsius Lu- 
theri officina sunt profectae, mirum est, quam promoveant rem Lu- 
theranam. Quaedam dogmaticae, aliae aemulantur psalmos pios ;— 
recitant exagitantque Christianorum vitia sive vera, sive ficta. 
Thomas de Jesu (Didacus Davila), Thesaur. sapient. divinae, T. 2, p. 
541. Luther inserted in the title-page of his hymn-book, published 
at Wittenberg, in 1543, the following stanza: 


“Viel falscher Meister jetzt Lieder dichten, 
Siehe dich fiir, und lern’ sie recht richten. 
Wo Gott hin hauet sein’ Kirch’ und sein Wort, 
Da will der Teufel seyn mit Trug und Mord.” 
—Augusti, Denkwiirdigkeiten, Vol. V. 8. 287. 


“ Now many false guides with their songs would o’erreach us; 
Beware of their arts, which should forcibly teach us: 
Where God is advancing his Church and his Word, 

There will Satan be with his cunning and sword.” 


The influence of congregational singing in England at an early pe- 


PSALMODY OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 347 


skill this mode of warfare and applied these weapons with 
sufficient success to their assaults upon the strongholds of 
Satan ? 

5. The influence of sacred music is too much overlooked 
as a means of moral discipline in our efforts to educate the 
young and to reform the vicious. 

Has it the place which its great importance demands in 
our primary schools and higher seminaries of learning? 
In Germany the child is universally taught to sing in the 
primary school. Singing is as much a part of the instruc- 
tion in these schools as arithmetic or grammar. This is 
one of the blessings which they owe to their great Reformer. 
“Next to theology,” said Luther, “it is to music that I give 
the highest place and the greatest honor.” A schoolmaster 
ought to know how to sing; without this qualification I 
would have nothing to do with him.” Can a more amiable 
provision be made for the future happiness of the child 
than to train his heart and ear for the delights of music by 
teaching his infant lips to sing the praises of his God and 
Saviour? 


riod in the Reformation is noticed by Bishop Jewell: ‘“‘A change now 
appears visible among the people, which nothing promotes more than 
inviting them to sing psalms. This was begun in one church in Lon- 
don, and did quickly spread itself, not only through the city, but in 
neighboring places. Sometimes at Paul’s Cross there will be six thou- 
sand singing together.” By the Act of Uniformity, 1548, the practice 
of using any psalm openly “in churches, chapels, oratorios and other 
places” was authorized. At length, after being popular for a while 
in France and Germany, among both Roman Catholics and Protest- 
ants, as psalmody came to be discountenanced by the former as an 
open declaration of Lutheranism, so in England psalm-singing was 
soon abandoned to the Puritans, and became almost a peculiarity of 
Nonconformity.”—Conder’s View of all Religions, p. 321. Note. 

51 Teh gebe nach der Theologia, der Musica den niihesten Locum 
und héchste Ehre. Opp. W. 22, 5. 2253.—Cited by 1) Aubigné. 


948 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


In our admirable system of prison discipline has it its 
proper place among the reforming influences which are em- 
ployed to quicken the conscience of the hardened transgres- 
sor and turn him from the error of his ways?” Has the 
power of sacred music been sufficiently employed to restore 
the insane? We know the magic power of David’s harp 
to tame the ferocious and frenzied spirit of Saul; will not 
the same means have a similar effect to soothe and to tran- 
quilize the poor maniac’s bewildered soul and to restore him 
to his right mind? We submit these inquiries respectfully 
to the careful consideration of the reader, and leave the 
subject for the discussion of abler pens. The classic poets 
beautifully illustrate the power of music by making the 
harp of Orpheus stay the rivers in their course and the 
winds in their flight, leading the listening oaks along, tam- 
ing savage beasts and more savage men.” 

Finally: This subject suggests the importance of simpli- 
city in church psalmody. 

Let our sacred songs be simple in their poetry. Such is 
the poetry of nature, of devotion, of the Scriptures. If we 
would have the songs of Zion come from the heart, the off 


52 “T always keep these little rogues singing at their work,” said a 
distinguished overseer of an institution for juvenile offenders in Ger- 
many—“ I always keep them singing; for while the children sing, the 
devil cannot come among them at all; he can only sit out doors there 
and growl; but if they stop singing, in comes the devil.””—Prof. Stowe 
on Com. Schools, p. 26. 

53 Fluminum lapsus celeresque ventos 
Blandum et auritas fidibus canoris 
Ducere quercus.— Hor. Car. 1, 12, 10. 


Silvestres homines sacer interpresque deorum 
Coedibus et victu foedo deterruit Orpheus 
Dictus ob hoc lenire tigres rabidosque leones. 
—Ad Pisones, 391. 


PSALMODY OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 349 


spring of pure and deep emotion—if we would have them 
stir the souls of the whole assembly for heartfelt, sympa- 
thetic worship—they must be indited in the simplicity of 
pure devotion. And let the notes of sacred music have the 
same delightful simplicity. Let them be adapted to con- 
gregational singing. Let all be trained to sing as early 
and as universally as they are taught to read; and if we 
would have the soul ascending in the song, let the whole 
assembly join in the solemn hymn which they raise to God. 
The primitive church knew nothing of a choir set apart and 
withdrawn from the congregation for the exclusive perform- 
ance of this delightful part of public worship. ‘The Bible 
knows nothing of a worship conducted by a few in behalf 
of a silent multitude, but calls upon everything that hath 
breath to join in this divine employ.” Have we done well, 
then, in substituting for the voice of all the people in the 
praise of God the voice of a few ina choir? For the sweet 
simplicity of ancient melodies, hallowed by a thousand sa- 
cred associations, have we wisely introduced the musical 
display of modern airs? Have we done well in substitut- 
ing, even for the rude simplicity of our fathers, if such you 
please to call it, the profane and secular airs of some mod- 
ern harmonies? After admiring those noble portraits of 
the great and revered Reformer which adorn the galleries 
of his native country, clad in the easy, simple and appro- 
priate costume of his age, who would endure the sight of 
that venerable form dressed out in the modern style, so 
trim and sleek, of a fashionable fop? With the same 
wretched taste do we mar, in attempting to mend the music 
of the great masters of another age by conforming it to the 
style of the present. 

It is gratifying to observe in the public journals and cur- 
rent literature of the day the return of the public mind to 


a better taste in sacred music, and to notice that several of 
30 


900 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


the ablest masters in the country have entered in earnest 
upon the work of reform. Heaven speed their work and 
hasten on the day when, with sweet accord of hearts and 
voices attuned to the worship of God, all shall join in sing- 
ing to his praise in the great congregation. 


CHAPTER XIII. 
HOMILIES IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


UNDER this head we shall direct our attention, 


I. To the discourses of Christ and of the apostles. 
II. To the homilies of the fathers in the Greek church. 
IIL. To those of the fathers in the Latin church. 


I. The discourses of Christ and of the apostles. 

The reading of the Scriptures, in connection with remarks 
and exhortations, constituted a part of the social worship 
of the primitive church. The apostles, wherever they went, 
frequented the synagogues of the Jews, where, after the 
reading of the Scriptures, an invitation was given to any 
one to remark upon what had been read. In this way they 
took occasion to speak of Christ and his doctrines to their 
brethren. Their addresses were occasional and apposite ; 
varied according to the circumstances of the hearer, and 
addressed, with great directness and pungency, to the un- 
derstanding and the heart. 

In the Acts we have brief notices of several of the ad- 
dresses of Peter and of Paul, and of one from Stephen, 
from which we may gather a distinct impression of their 
style of address. The first from Peter was before the dis- 
ciples, who, to the number of one hundred and twenty, 
were assembled to elect a substitute in the place of the 
traitor Judas, Acts 1. 1ὅ. It is calculated to soothe the 
minds of his hearers, oppressed by the melancholy end of 

351 


--. 


Ὁ THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


this apostate, by showing that all had transpired according 
to the prediction of God’s word, and to fulfill the counsel 
of his will. 

The second was delivered on the occasion of the shedding 
abroad of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, Acts 1]. 
14. After refuting the malicious charge of having drunk 
to excess, he proceeds to show from the Scriptures that all 
which the multitude saw was only the fulfillment of an- 
cient prophecy ; he charges them with having crucified the 
Lord Jesus Christ, whom God had exalted as a Prince 
and a Saviour to give repentance unto Israel and re- 
mission of sins. Such was the force of his cutting reproof 
that three thousand were brought to believe in Christ 
crucified. 

His third address, on the occasion of healing the lame 
man in the temple, Acts iii., was of the same character and 
attended with a similar result. His fourth and fifth were 
delivered before the Sanhedrim, in defence of himself and 
the apostles, Acts iv.7; v.29. Of these we only know 
that the subject was the same as the preceding—Christ 
wickedly crucified and slain by the Jews, and raised from 
the dead for the salvation of men. Before Cornelius the 
centurion, Acts vi. 34, after explaining the miraculous 
manner in which his Jewish prejudices had been overruled, 
and how he had been led to see the comprehensive nature 
of the gospel system, he gives an outline of its great truths, 
attested by the Scriptures, relating to Christ, to the resur- 
rection and the final judgment. 4.1] these discourses mani- 
fest the same boldness and fervency of spirit, and are 
directed to produce the same result—repentance for sin and 
faith in Christ. 

Stephen, in his defence before the Sanhedrim, Acts vii., 
traces the history of God’s dispensations to the Jews, and 
of their treatment of his servants the prophets, whom they 


HOMILIES IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 353 


had rejected and slain, and charges them with having 
finally consummated their guilt by becoming the betrayers 
and murderers of the Holy and Just One. Paul, in his 
address at Antioch, pursues the same style; showing “how, 
from age to age, God had been unfolding his purpose to 
give salvation to men by Jesus Christ, and finally bringing 
the whole to bear with tremenduous force in its application 
to his hearers. “ Beware, therefore, lest that come upon 
you which is spoken in the prophecy: Behold, ye despisers, 
and wonder and perish; for I work a work in your day, a 
work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man de- 
clare it unto you,” Acts xiii. 40,41. Time would fail us 
to follow the apostle in his masterly address before the 
Areopagus at Athens, Acts xvii. 22—his affecting interview 
with the elders of Ephesus at Miletus, Acts xx. 18—his 
admirable defence before the Jews, and before Festus and 
Agrippa, the king, Acts xxli., xxill., xxvi. With the 
Greeks he reasoned as a Greek, making no reference to the 
Jewish Scriptures; but, from their own poets and the 
natural principles of philosophy and of religion, convin- 
cing them of the vanity of their superstitions. With the 
Jews he reasoned as a Jew out of their own sacred books, 
and testified to all, both Jew and Greek, the great doctrines 
of repentance and faith in Christ, the resurrection of the 
dead and the general judgment. 

The addresses of the apostles are remarkable at once for 
their simplicity and their power. None ever preached with 
such effect as they. Wherever they went converts were 
multiplied and churches reared up, in defiance of all oppo- 
sition, and in the face of every conceivable discouragement. 
Strong in faith and mighty in the Scriptures, these few men, 
in a few short years, made greater conquests over the king- 
dom of Satan and won more souls to Christ than all the 
missionaries of all Christendom have gained in half a cen- 

30 # 


Out TILE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


tury. Whence, then, this mighty power? Without ven- 
turing far into this interesting field of inquiry, we may offer 
a few suggestions in relation to the characteristics of the 
apostles’ preaching. 

1. They insisted chiefly on a few cardinal points, com- 
prising the great truths of the Christian religion. 

Christ, and him crucified; repentance; faith in Christ 
and the remission of sins; the resurrection ; and the general 
judgment ;—these are the great points to which all their 
addresses are directed. The simplicity of these truths gave 
a like simplicity to their preaching. Beaming full on their 
own minds, and occupying their whole soul, these momen- 
tous truths fell from their lips with tremendous power upon 
the hearts and consciences of their hearers. No power of 
oratory or strength of argument could equal the awful con- 
ception which they had of what they preached. They 
could, therefore, speak in the fullness of their hearts, and 
with earnestness and simplicity, what theyehad heard, and 
seen and felt. The word thus spoken was quick and pow- 
erful; it cut to the heart; it converted the soul. 

2. Their full conviction of the truths which they preached 
gave directness and pungency to their addresses. 

Honest in their sacred cause, and much impressed with 
what they said, and anxious only to fasten the same im- 
pression in the minds of their hearers, they spoke with 
honest earnestness the convictions of their inmost soul. 
These strong convictions gave them the noblest eloquence, 
the eloquence of truth and of nature. Pietas est quod diser- 
tum facit, says the great Roman orator. Piety inspires true 
eloquence. This was the secret of their eloquence. They 
felt the high importance of what they said; and, springing 
from the heart, their exhortations touched the hearts of 
those to whom they spake. 

3. Their preaching was wholly scriptural—based on the 


HOMILIES IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 9 


Scriptures and restricted to the single purpose of making 
manifest the truths of God’s word. 

They preached Jesus Christ, in the very character in 
which he is revealed in the word of God, and to which all 
the prophets have given testimony. Standing thus in the 
counsel of the Lord, they had strong ground of defence, and 
holy boldness in declaring what God had said. Their 
preaching was, accordingly, in the demonstration of the 
Spirit and of power. Armed with this energy divine, is 
it wonderful that the word spoken had this quickening 
power? 

4. The contradiction and persecution which they contin- 
ually experienced gave peculiar earnestness and power to 
their ministrations. 

One who, like Paul, could say, “ None of these things 
-move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that 
I might finish my course with joy and the ministry which 
I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of 
the grace of God,” Acts xx. 24—such a man only waxes 
bolder in the truth by all the conflicts to which he is called, 
and summons up unwonted powers in proclaiming the gos- 
pel which he preaches at the peril of his life. Standing in 
jeopardy every hour, with an eye fixed on eternity and 
fearless of every foe, is it surprising that with surpassing 
energy and power the apostles declared the gospel of the 
grace of God to their fellow-men ? 

5. They preached in God’s name, and were sustained by 
the undoubted assurance of his support. 

They were ambassadors for God, and, supported by his 
authority, had great boldness in declaring the messages of 
his grace. If God be for us, who can be against us? 
Strong in the Lord and in the power of his might, fearless 
of danger and of death, they gave themselves up to the 
guidance of his Spirit, speaking as the Holy Ghost gave 


356 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


them utterance; and, like their Lord, teaching as one hay- 
ing authority, and not as the Scribes. 


After those fragments of the public addresses of Christ 
and the apostles which are recorded in the Scriptures, no 
example of a similar discourse in the primitive church re- 
mains, until we come down to Origen in the third century. 
It is, however, generally admitted that such familiar re- 
marks, in connection with the reading of the Scriptures, 
continued uniformly to constitute a part of the social and 
public worship of the primitive Christians. Such instruc- 
tions were expected particularly from the presbyters, Acts 
xx. 28; 1 Pet. v. 2, but the privilege of public speaking 
was not restricted to them. The freedom of primitive wor- 
ship permitted any one, with the exception of the female 
sex, to speak in religious assemblies. This was not origin- | 
ally the exclusive or principal duty of the presbyter.’ Hil- 
ary’s testimony to this effect has already been given.’ Ori- 
gen, again, was invited by the bishops of Caesarea and the 
vicinity to preach in public, though he had never been or- 
dained as a presbyter.’ 

Tertullian and Justin Martyr each say enough to show 
that the churches of Africa and Asia respectively still con- 
ducted their religious worship in the freedom and simplicity 
of earlier days. ‘‘ We meet together to read the Holy Scerip- 
tures, and, when circumstances permit, to. admonish one 
another. In such sacred discourse we establish our faith, 
we encourage our hope, we confirm our trust, and quicken 
our obedience to the word by a renewed application of its 


1 Apost. Kirch. 1, ec. 5. Comp. J. H. Bohmer, Dissertat. 7. De 
Dif. inter ordinem ecclesiast., etc., 2 39. Eschenberg, Versuch Re- 
ligionsvortriige, 5. 85. Rothe, Anfiinge, Vol. I. 5. 155-160. 

2 Chap. 7, p. 257. 

3. Euseb. Eccl. Hist. 6, ὃ. 19. Comp. Lib. 5, ec. 10;, Lib. 6, 19. 


HOMILIES IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. SF 


truths.”* The whole account indicates that “the brethren” 
sought, by familiar remarks and mutual exhortations, to 
enforce a practical application of the portion of the Scrip- 
tures which had been read, and to encourage one another 
in their religious hopes and duties. 

The account from Justin, which has already been given 
(p. 295), corresponds with that of Tertullian, with the single 
exception that the addresses were from the presiding pres- 
byter, who conducted the worship of the assembly. In both 
instances it was a biblical exercise, designed to enforce a 
practical application of the truths which had been presented 
in the reading. Not a single text, but the entire passage 
from the Scriptures which had been read, was the subject 
of remark. ‘This style of expository preaching continued 
apparently into the third century; before the close of which, 
a rhetorical, theatrical mode of address was introduced.’ 

The taste of the present age is against this style of 
preaching; and, by common consent of pastor and people, 
it has fallen into neglect. But it has certain peculiar 
advantages, which deservedly recommend it to the consid- 
eration of every minister of Christ. 

1. It is recommended by apostolical precedent.. 

The apostles were directed by wisdom from on high, to 
adopt, or, if you please, to continue this mode of address 
in the Christian church. They were content simply to 
commend the truth to their hearers as God had revealed 
it. They strove, as the only and ultimate end of all their 
preaching, to lay open the heart and conscience to the 
naked truth of God. So presented and applied, that truth 
became quick and powerful in producing the end of all 
preaching,—the conviction and conversion of men. 

2. This style of preaching is recommended by its prac- 
tical efficacy. 


4 Tertullian, Apol. 39. 
5 Rheinwald, Archaeol. p. 279. Comp. Euseb. Orat. pro Const. ete. 


308 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


Never, elsewhere, has the ministry of man been attended 
with results so interesting and momentous as were those 
which followed the ministrations of the holy men in the 
first ages of the church, who knew no other style of address 
than the one we are considering, and who simply sought to 
give a plain exposition of Scripture, with a direct and pun- 
gent application to the hearer. 

3. Expository preaching gives variety to the ministra- 
tions of the pulpit. 

The preacher, by continually alibi the hasty .sugges- 
tions of his own mind, is in danger of falling into a regular 
train of thought and illustration; and this, by frequent 
recurrence, may give sameness to his ministrations, and 
render them as monotonous, almost, as the regular tone of 
his voice. His sermons, thrown off in quick succession from 
a mind jaded by the ceaseless recurrence of the same duties, 
may not unfrequently exhibit to the hearer only the sepa- 
rate lineaments of the same features. But in the various 
portions of the sacred volume there is a variety, a richness 
and fertility which no uninspired intellect ever possessed ; 
and these, if successively introduced, may be an exhaustless 
theme of discourse, ever new, gratefully diversified, and yet 
alike interesting and edifying in their turn. All Scripture 
is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, 
for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 
that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished 
unto all good works, 2 Tim. iii. 16. Why for ever set this 
aside to inflict upon our auditory what is too often the pro- 
duction of a barren mind, or a wearied intellect and a cold 
heart. 

4, Expository addresses afford the happiest means of 
applying religious instruction to all classes and conditions 
of men. 

In a consecutive exposition of the Scriptures a yast vari- 


HOMILIES IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 359 


ety of topics arises, which, discreetly handled, may be made 
the means of enforcing duties that otherwise would never 
be embraced within the teachings of the ministry. A single 
epistle of Paul, or one of the evangelists, thus expounded, 
will in a few months lead the preacher to remark upon 
many subjects which otherwise, in the whole course of his 
ministry, might never find a place in his public discourses. 

5. The preparation of such discourses affords the preacher 
the happiest opportunity of enriching his own mind with 
varied and profitable learning. 

Many a sermon is written without the addition of a single 
valuable thought, or of a new fact to the acquisitions of 
the preacher. But how varied the inquiries which arise in 
the attempt to elucidate a portion of Scripture! Geography, 
history, philology, philosophy, theology, doctrinal and prac- 
tical, all are put in requisition, and bring their varied con- 
tributions to elucidate the sacred page and to enrich his 
own mind. His lexicons are recalled from the neglected 
shelf. His Bible in the original tongue is resumed. He 
drinks at the sacred fountain, refreshing alike to the heart 
and the mind, and returns to his people with fresh acquisi- 
tions that make him both a wiser man and a better preacher. 

Finally, this mode of address, above all others, gives the 
preacher opportunity to bring the truth of God, with its 
living, life-giving power, to bear upon the minds of his 
people. 

That which the preacher speaks is now no longer his own. 
It is Jehovah’s awful voice calling upon the hearer to listen 
obediently to his high commands. The audience may cavil 
at the preacher or sit by in cold indifference, but they have 
a solemn interest in these messages of God to them. Oppo- 
sition is silenced, and the ear is opened to attend while Je- 
hovah speaks. What would have fallen powerless from the 
preacher’s lips now comes with divine authority and power 


900 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


to convince and convert the soul. Multitudes on earth and 
in heaven can attest the mighty power of divine truth thus 
plainly set forth from the word of God in bringing them to 
repentance. Let the minister observe the moral efficacy of 
his various ministrations, and he will find that when he has 
withdrawn himself most from the notice of his hearers, and 
brought forward the word of God to unfold to them its tre- 
mendous truths, then has he seen the happiest fruits of his 
labors. Let him return after a long absence to the former 
scene of his labors, and he will find that while his hearers 
have forgotten his most elaborate sermons, they still re- 
member his faithful expositions of the word of God in the 
evening lecture. 


11. Homilies in the Greek church.° 

From the third century the homilies of the Greek and 
Roman fathers are so different that it will be most conve- 
nient to consider them separately, confining our attention 
to that period which extends in the Greek church from 
Origen, A. D. 230, to Chrysostom, A. D. 400, and in the 
Roman from Cyprian, A. D. 258, to Augustine, A. D. 430. 

With Origen a new style of public address began in the 
Greek church, which had, indeed, some advantages, but was 
attended by many and still greater faults. The following 
brief outline of the characteristics of the style of preaching 
now under consideration, and of the circumstances which 
led to its adoption, is given chiefly from Eschenberg, who 
is admitted to have written on this subject with candor and 
discrimination. 

6 The writers of the period now under consideration are Origen, 
A. Ὁ. 230; Gregory of Neocaesarea, A. D. 240; Athanasius, A. Ὁ. 
325; Basil the Great, A. D. 370; Gregory of Nyssa, A. Ὁ. 370; 
Gregory Nazianzen, 379. Among others of less note may be classed 
Methodius, A. D. 290; Macarius, A. D. 373; Ephraem the Syrian, 
A. Ὁ. 370; Amphiloginus, A. Ὁ. 870-375, and Nectarius, A. Ὁ. 381. 


HOMILIES IN THE GREEK CHURCH. 361 


1. Origen introduced that allegorical mode of interpret- 
ing the Scriptures which, while it affected to illustrate, con- 
tinued for a long time to darken the sacred page. Not 
content with a plain and natural elucidation of the his- 
torical sense of the text, it sought for some hidden meaning, 
darkly shadowed forth in allegorical, mystical terms. Great 
as was Origen in talent, industry and learning, he showed 
_ still greater weakness in the childish fancies in which he 
indulged as an interpreter of Scripture. The great respect 
in which he was held gave currency to his mode of preach- 
ing, so that he became the father of all that allegorical 
nonsense which for a long time continued to dishonor the 
public preaching of the ancient church. 

2. The sermons of the period under consideration were 
occupied with profitless polemical discussions and specu- 
lative theories. 

The question with the preacher seems too often to have 
been, not what will produce the fruits of holy living and 
prepare the hearer for eternity, but how the opinions of 
another can best be controverted—worthless dogmas, it may 
be, deserving no serious consideration. Whether those who 
adopted them would be made wiser and better was a ques- 
tion not often asked. Doctrinal points, rather than_moral 
truths, were taught from the Scriptures; and often were 
sentiments condemned which were truly just, while others 
_ were extolled which were wholly worthless. 

3. The preachers of this period claimed most undeserved 
respect for their own authority. 

Flattered by the great consideration in which they were 
held and the confidence in which the people waited on them 
for instruction, they converted the pulpit into a stage for 
the exhibition of their own pertinacity, ignorance and folly. 
They manifested an angry impatience at the errors of others, 
persecuted them for following their own convictions, and 

31 Q 


362 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


condemned them for refusing assent to arbitrary forms pre- 
scribed by the priesthood as conditions of salvation. With 
all their self-conceit, they manifested a time-serving spirit. 
As the opinions of the court and of the principal men in 
the nation favored one religious party or another, so were 
they more or less reserved in exposing the errors of the 
same. The polemic discourses from the pulpit changed 
with every change of administration; and what a short 
time before had been advanced as wholesome truth, under 
a change of circumstances was denounced as damnable 
heresy. 

4. The sermons of this period were as faulty in style as 
they were exceptionable in the other characteristics which 
have been mentioned. 

Not only was the simplicity which characterized the 
teachings of Christ and of the apostles in a great measure 
lost in absurd and puerile expositions of Scripture, and 
corrupted by the substitution of vain speculations derived 
especially from the Platonic philosophy, but the style of 
the pulpit was in other respects vitiated and corrupted. 
Philosophical terms and rhetorical flourishes, forms of ex- 
pression extravagant and far-fetched, biblical expressions 
unintelligible to the people, unmeaning comparisons, absurd 
antitheses, spiritless interrogations, senseless exclamations 
and bombast disfigure the sermons of the period now under 
consideration. 


Causes which contributed to form the style above de- 
scribed : 

1. The prevalence of pagan philosophy. . 

The preacher was compelled to acquaint himself with the 
philosophical speculations of the day, to expose their sub- 
tleties, and he unconsciously fell into a similar mode of 
philosophizing. 


HOMILIES IN THE GREEK CHURCH. 363 


2. The conversion of many philosophers to Christianity, 
especially at the beginning of this period, had an influence 
in corrupting the simplicity of the Christian system, both in 
doctrine and in discourse. 

They sought to incorporate their philosophical principles 
with the doctrines of Christianity, and to introduce their 
rhetoric and sophistries into the discourses of the clergy. 
Every discussion gave occasion for the introduction of va- 
rious forms of expression unknown in Scripture. But to 
give greater authority to such discussions, certain phrases 
were selected from the Scriptures to which a meaning was 
attached similar to the philosophical terms in use, and out 
of this strange combination a new dialect was formed for 
the pulpit. In this way the few and simple doctrines of 
Christianity received from an impure philosophy many 
additions from time to time, and by continual controversy 
were darkened the more, and gradually almost excluded 
from the instructions of the pulpit. 

3. The evil in question was aggravated by the want of 
suitable preparation for the ministry. 

Some betook themselves to the schools of the Platonic 
philosophy, and became practiced in the arts of the orators 
and sophists of the day. Others sought, in deserts and in 
cloisters, to prepare themselves for the sacred office. Here 
they brooded over what they had previously read and heard. 
Removed from intercourse with men, they only learned to - 
be visionary, perverse, self-willed and immoral. The con- 
sequence was that their instructions abounded with false, 
distorted views of virtue and doctrine, and of the means of 
moral improvement. 

4. Jgonorance of just principles of interpretation con- 
tributed to the same result. 

Philo, Plato and others were read instead of the evange- 
lists and Paul and the other apostles. The Hebrew wag 


964 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


little cultivated, and the true principles of interpretation 
were unknown. 

5. A blind self-conceit had much influence in setting 
aside the great truths and duties of religion. 

Forgetful of the religious edification of his people, the 
preacher was occupied with speculations upon trifling and 
unmeaning things. These, accordingly, were the topics of 
his public discourses whenever he was not employed in the 
endeavor to expose some heretical dogma. " 

6. The religious controversy of the day gave an unprofit- 
able direction to the instructions of the pulpit. 

The preacher had constantly the attitude of a polemic, 
watching with a vigilant eye any defection from the truth, 
and hastening to oppose the outbreak of some destructive 
heresy. 

7. The increasing influence of the bishop. 

This was itself a new source of polemical discussion. The 
bishops at the head of their churches, and, in the larger 
cities, already having great authority over the presbyters 
and deacons, would not receive from these the least contra- 
diction. Not content merely to be honored, the bishops 
would be implicitly obeyed. To this demand some one per- 
haps ventured to dissent. If he had the courage or incon- 
sideration to advance an opposite opinion concerning a 
doctrine of Scripture, or a sentiment avowed in a public 
address, he was, if possible, ejected from office by the bishop, 
and for what he had said or written was condemned as a 
heretic. 

8. The increasing formalities of public worship had no 
small influence in diverting the mind from the true object 
of public religious instruction. 

These forms, of which Christianity in its original sim- 
plicity had so few, were generally multiplied; great attention 
was paid to the adorning of the churches; festivals hecame 


HOMILIES IN THE LATIN CHURCH. 365 


numerous ; rites and ceremonies were multiplied ; the effect 
of all which was to turn off the mind from the essential 
truths and duties of religion and fasten attention upon other 
things, which have not the least influence in promoting the 
spiritual improvement of man. The preacher sought to 
adapt his addresses to these forms and festivals,’ and often 
fell into extravagances and fanaticisms. Monks, ascetics 
and recluses were extolled as saints and commended as ex- 
amples of piety. 

Finally, the effeminacy, the tendency to gloom and mel- 
ancholy, and the love of the marvelous which have ever 
characterized the Eastern nations, became to some extent 
infused into the religious discourses of their preachers. 


III. Homilies in the Latin church. 
The writers of this same period, from A. D. 250 to 400, 


7 “Of this depraved state of the public mind we have a striking 
example from Socrates. In relating the endless discords of the 
churches in regard to their rites and festivals, he refers to the decision 
of the apostolical council, Acts xv. 23-30, to show that the apostles 
gave no instructions touching these forms, but insisted only on moral 
duties, and proceeds to say: ‘Some, however, regardless of these prac- 
tical injunctions, treat with indifference every species of licentiousness, 
but contend as if for their lives for the days when a festival should be 
held’ ”—FEcel. Hist. Lib. 5, c. 22. The same degeneracy characterized 
the church before the Reformation. “In proportion as a higher 
value was attached to outward rites, the sanctification of the heart had 
become less and less an object of concern; dead ordinances had every- 
where usurped the place of a Christian life; and by a revolting yet 
natural alliance, the most scandalous debauchery had been combined 
with the most superstitious devotion. Instances are on record of theft 
committed at the altar, seduction practiced in the confessional, poison 
mingled with the Eucharist, adultery perpetrated at the foot of the 
cross.” —D’ Aubigné’s Ref. Vol. III. p. 348. This is one of the evils 
of prelacy. It encourages a debasing superstition which, by corrupt- 
ing the doctrines of religion, vitiates the morals of the people, 

31 * 


960 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


to whom reference is had in the following remarks, are 
Cyprian, Zeno and Ambrose. The characteristic distinc- 
tions between these and the Greek fathers, whose public 
discourses have been considered, are given by our author 
in the following summary : 

1. The Latins were inferior to the Greeks in their ex- 
egesis of the Scriptures. They accumulated a multitude of 
passages without just discrimination or due regard to their 
application to the people. 

2. They interested themselves less with speculative and 
polemic theology than the Greeks. 

3. They insisted upon moral duties more than the Greeks, 
but were equally unfortunate in their mode of treating these 
topics, by reason of the undue importance which they at- 
tached to the forms and ceremonies of religion ; hence their 
reverence for saints and relics, their vigils, fasts, penances 
and austerities of every kind. 

4. In method and style the homilies of the Latin fathers 
are greatly inferior to those of the Greeks. 


Causes productive of these characteristics. 

1. The lack of suitable means of education. . 

They neither had schools of theology like the Greeks, 
nor were they as familiar with the literature and oratory 
of their own people. Ambrose was promoted to the office ~ 
of bishop with scarcely any preparation for its duties. 

2. Ignorance of the original languages of the Bible. 

Of the Hebrew they knew nothing; of the original of the 
New Testament they knew little; and still less of all that 
is essential to its right interpretation. When they resorted 
to the Scriptures, it was too frequently to oppose heresy by 
an indiscriminate accumulation of texts. When they at- 
tempted to explain, it was by perpetual allegories. 


HOMILIES IN THE LATIN CHURCH. 367 


3. The want of suitable examples and a just standard of 
public speaking. . 

Basil, Ephraem the Syrian and the two Gregories were 
contemporaries, and were mutual helps and incentives to 
one another. Others looked to them as patterns for public 
preaching. But such advantages were unknown in the 
Latin church. The earlier classic authors of Greece and 
Rome were discarded from bigotry ; or, through ignorance, 
so much neglected that their influence was little felt. 

4. The unsettled state of the Western churches should be 
mentioned in this connection. 

Persecuted and in exile at one time, at another engaged in 
fierce and bloody contests among themselves,® the preachers 
of the day had little opportunity to prepare for their ap- 
propriate duties. Literature was neglected. Under Con- 
stantine, Rome herself ceased to be the seat of the fine arts, 
and barbarism began its disastrous encroachments upon the 
provinces of the Western church. 

5. The increasing importance of the bishop’s office. 

The pride of the bishops and their neglect of their duty 
as preachers kept pace with their advancement in author- 
ity. Asin the Greek church, so also in the Latin, this sense 
of their own importance gave a polemic character to their 
preaching. But. in the latter church they became careful 
to assert and defend their own dignity; indolent and 
pleasure-loving, as their incomes increased. They sought, 
in every possible way, to promote their own power and 561 
aggrandizement. They created new and needless offices, 
better suited to assist them in commanding, in governing 
and in maintaining their dignity than to promote the in- 
struction and edification of the people. 

8 The contests for the election of bishops often ran so high as to end 


in bloodshed and murder, of whieh an example is given in Walch’s 
History of the Popes, p. 87. Ammianus Marcellinus, Lib. 27, ο. 3. 


368 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


Others sought, by the appearance of great sanctity, by 
celibacy and seclusion, by fasting and the like, to maintain 
and to augment their importance. In the practice of these 
austerities they wasted so much time that little remained 
to be employed in preparation for public speaking. 

6. The increase of the ceremonies and forms of public 
worship. 

The effect of all these was to give importance to the 
bishop; and, in his zeal for the introduction and general 
adoption of them, the essential points of the Christian re- 
ligion were forgotten. Need we relate with what zeal Victor, 
the Roman bishop, engaged in the controversies respecting 
Easter and the ceremonies connected with it? What com- 
plicated rites were involved with the simple ordinance of 
baptism, and the abuses with which they were connected ; 
what importance, what sanctity was ascribed to their fasts, 
and what controversies arose between the Latin and the 
Greek church from the reluctance of the latter to adopt the 
rites of the former? What incredible effects were ascribed 
to the sign of the cross ?? Where indeed would the enumera- 
tion end if we should attempt a specification of all the 
ceremonies, with their various abuses, which were introduced 
during the period under consideration? Thus ancient 
episcopacy touched with its withering blight the ministra- 
tions of the pulpit, both in the churches of the East and 
of the West.” 


To the foregoing view we subjoin one or two remarks: 

1. Episcopacy is an encumbrance to the faithful minister 
in the discharge of his appropriate duties. 

9 Cyprian, Lib. 2, Testimon. adv. Indaeos, ὁ. 21, 22. Lactant. In- 
stit. Lib. 4, c. 27, 28, Vol. I. p. 594, ed. Biinemann. ἢ 

10 Many other particulars in relation to the homilies of the ancient 
church are given in the author’s Christian Antiquities, ο. 12, pp. 237- 
252; Ancient Christianity, pp. 348, 549. 


HOMILIES IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 909 

The reader has noticed what obstacles these ancient pre- 
latists of the church encountered in their ministry. So 
much attention was requisite to guard the episcopal pre- 
rogatives, such vigilance to root out the heresies that were 
perpetually shooting up in rank luxuriance within the 
church; so much time was wasted in useless discussions 
about rites and forms, festivals and feasts and all the cere- 
monials of their religion, as sadly to divert their attention 
from their appropriate work of winning souls to Christ. 

All this is only the natural result of an exclusive and 
formal religion. Such a religion addresses itself powerfully 
to strong, original principles of our nature. And the re- 
sults are as distinctly manifest in modern as they were in 
ancient prelacy. Undue importance is given to the ex- 
ternals of religion, which have little or no place in the 
ministrations of the pulpit. In the perpetual lauding of 
the church, her rites and her liturgy; in the conscious re- 
liance upon her ordinances; in the sanctimonious exclusive- 
ness, which boasts of apostolical succession and divine 
right; in the sleepless vigilance to guard against any 
imaginable departure from the rubric,—in all these we see 
the influences still at work which wrought such mischief in 
the ministry of ancient prelacy; still, as then, embarrassing 
the faithful preaching of Christ and him crucified. The 
charges of the bishops and the sermons of the clergy show 
distinctly the strong bias which the mind receives from a 
religion surcharged with ceremonials and boasting its ex- 
clusive prerogatives. These unconsciously assume undue 
importance in the preacher’s mind. His Bible furnishes 
him with a text; but too frequently his rubric suggests his 
subject." Such is the natural course of the human mind. 


11 Even the Christian Observer, for May, 1804, has an article from 
a churchman, gravely inquiring, not after the best means for the con- 
version of men and their continuance in the Christian faith, but for 


Q* 


370 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


It fastens strongly upon what is outward and sensual; for- 
getful of that which is inward and spiritual. ‘The Divine 
Founder of Christianity, as if in wise jealousy of a tendency 
which may be so easily abused, confined the ceremonials of 
his religion within the strictest limits.” 

According to the canons of the church, which were 


the “most effectual means which a faithful clergyman can take during 
his life, in order to prevent his flock from becoming Dissenters after his 
death ἢ As though the highest ends of a faithful Episcopal minister 
were, not to save the souls of his people, but to save them from be- 
coming Dissenters. In the foregoing remarks allusion has hardly 
been made to the Puseyite party in that church; and yet a late writer 
claims, on that side, nine of the thirteen charges which have been de- 
livered by English bishops within a short time past; and even of the 
remaining four, only one was decidedly against the party. One of 
this class, instead of being absorbed in the great doctrines of the gos- 
pel, is intent, with almost a mystic monomania, upon the arrangement 
of the merest trifles—clerical costume and pulpit etiquette, chaplets, 
crosses, crucifixes, wax candles, flowers, “red,” “white” and “inter- 
mingled.” 
“Nescio quid meditans nugarum et totus in illis.” 


Notice, for example, the solemn fatuity of these instructions from 
the Directorium Anglicanum for the ordination of deacons: “The 
bishop will enter the cathedral church, vested in purple cassock, 
rochet, chimera, episcopal ring, zucchetto and birretta. If he do not 
vest in the sacristy, he will remove his vestments from the altar... .. 
On reaching the faldstool, the bishop will remove his birretta and 
deliver it to the deacon, who, in his turn, will deliver it to an acolyte. 
He will wear the zucchetto till the assumption of the mitre. The 
gloves will be carried on ἃ salver.... . . The bishop, on being vested 
with the dalmatis, sits down; and the deacon removes the episcopal 
ring and hands it to the sub-deacon to place ona salver held by an 
alcolyte for that function. The gloves are then presented on a salver, 
and should be so arranged that the right may lie at the side of the 
deacon and the left at that of the sub-deacon. In putting on the 
gloves, the deacon assists at the right and the sub-deacon at the left,” 


pp. 223, 224.—London Quarterly, Jan., 1867. 


HOMILIES IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 371 


adopted in 1603, “whosoever shall affirm that the rites and 
ceremonies of that church are ‘wicked, antichristian or 
superstitious’ shall be excommunicated, ipso facto, and not 
restored until he repent and publicly revoke his wicked 
_ errors,’ Can. 6. The seventy-fourth canon directs that 
archbishops and bishops shall wear the accustomed apparel 
of their degrees, and that the subordinate orders shall “wear 
gowns with standing sleeves, straight at the hands; or wide 
sleeves, with hoods or tippets of silk or sarcanet, and square 
caps.” They are not to wear “ wrought night-caps, but only 
plain night-caps of black silk, satin or velvet.” At home 
they may wear “any comely or scholar-like apparel, pro- 
vided it be not cut or pinkt; and that in public they go 
not in their doublet and hose, without coats or cassocks; 
and that they wear not any light-colored stockings.” ΑἹ] 
this is gravely entered in the canons of the church, and 
“ratified by letters-patent from the king, under the great 
seal of England, after having been diligently read with 
great contentment and comfort.” 

2. As a conservative principle, to preserve the unity of 
the church, episcopacy is entirely inadequate. 

If the unity of the church consists in a name merely, and 
in forms—in the use of a prayer-book and surplice—then 
may episcopacy be said to preserve this unity; but in what 
else have they of this communion ever been united? how 
else have they kept the unity of the faith? In the an- 
cient church what was the success of the episcopal ex- 
pedient to preserve the unity of the church. Let Milton 
reply: “Heresy begat heresy with a certain monstrous haste 
of pregnancy in her birth, at once born and bringing forth. 
Contentions, before brotherly, were now hostile. Men went 
to choose their bishop as they went to a pitched field, and 
the day of his election was like the sacking of a city, some- 
times ending in the blood of thousands; . . . . so that, in- 


Sioa THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


stead of finding prelacy an impeacher of schisms and 
faction, the more I search the more I grow into all per- 
suasion to think rather that faction and she, as with a 
spousal ring, are wedded together, never to be divorced.” "ἢ 

What idea does the profession of episcopacy at present 
give of one’s religious faith? Is he Calvinistic, Arminian, 
or Unitarian; high-church or low-church; Puseyitish, semi- 
popish, or what? “The religion of the Church of England,” 
says Macaulay, “is so far from exhibiting that unity of 
doctrine which Mr. Gladstone represents as her distinguish- 
ing glory, that it is, in fact, a bundle of religious systems 
without number. It comprises the religious system of 
Bishop Tomline, and the religious system of John Newton, 
and all the religious systems that lie between them. It 
comprises the religious system of Mr. Newman, and the 
religious system of the Archbishop of Dublin, and all the 
religious systems that he between. All these different 
opinions are held, avowed, preached, printed, within the 
pale of the church by men of unquestioned integrity and 
understanding.” * 

As an expedient, therefore, to preserve the unity of the 
church, episcopacy must be pronounced an entire failure. 
And yet they of this denomination present the extraordi- 
nary spectacle of the most discordant sect in all Christen- 
dom boasting the conservative powers of their religion as 
its distinguishing glory, and urging a return to this, their 
“one body in Christ,’ as the only means of preserving the 
unity of the church ! 


12 Prose Works, Vol. I. pp. 121, 122. 

18 Review of Gladstone’s Church and State, Miscel. Vol. III. p. 
306; Hetherington, 130,131. Bishop Warburton says the Church, in 
his days, was like Noah’s ark, where a few sensible creatures were 
crowded in a corner, quite as much annoyed by the company and the 
concomitants within as by the storm without. 


Goer LER XIV. 
THE BENEDICTION. 


I. Ortarn and import of the rite. 

It seems to have been from remote antiquity a common 
belief that either a blessing or a curse, when pronounced 
with solemnity, is peculiarly efficacious upon those who are 
the objects of it." So common was this belief that it gave 
rise to the proverb, “The blessing and the curse fail not of 
their fulfillment.” The consequences were momentous, ac- 
cording to the character of the person from whom the pro- 
phetic sentiment proceeded. The blessing of the aged pa- 
triarch, of the prophet, the priest and the king was sought 
with peculiar interest, and their execration deprecated with 
corresponding anxiety. Of the king’s curse we have an 
instance in 1 Sam. xiv. 24. Saul adjured the people and 
said, Cursed be the man that eateth any food until the 
evening, that I may be avenged on mine enemies. Comp. 
Josh. vi. 26 with 1 Kings xvi. 34. The blessing and the 
curse of Noah upon his sons, Gen. ix. 25-28, and of Moses 
upon the children of Israel, Deut. xxviii., XxXxiii., are famil- 
iar illustrations of the same sentiment, as is also the history 
of Balaam, whose curse upon Israel Balak sought with so 
much solicitude, Num. xxii., xxili., xxiv. The blessing of 
the patriarchs Isaac and Jacob respectively was sought with 


1 Dira detestatio nulla expiatur victima.—Hor. E’pod. 5,90. Hence 
also the expression, Thyesteae preces, in the same ode. Comp. Iliad. 
9, 455. 


32 3738 


ore THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


peculiar anxiety, as conveying to their posterity the favor 
of God and the smiles of his providence, Gen. xxvii., and 
xlviii., xlix. Comp. Deut. xxxiii. The son of Sirach ex- 
presses a similar sentiment, ili. 9: “The blessing of the 
father establisheth the houses of children ; pu the curse of 
the mother rooteth out foundations.” 

With the question relative to the prophetic character of 
these patriarchal benedictions we are not now concerned. 
It is sufficient for our present purpose that the benediction 
of patriarchs, of parents, and of all those who were vene- 
rable for their age or for their religious or official character, 
was regarded as peculiarly efficacious in propitiating the 
favor of God toward those upon whom the blessing was 
pronounced. | 

In addition to all this, the Aaronitic priesthood were 
divinely constituted the mediators between God and his 
people Israel. They were the intercessors for his people 
before his altar, and stood in their official character as 
daysmen between the children of Israel and Jehovah their 
God. In this official capacity Aaron and his sons were 
directed to bless the children of Israel, saying, “The Lord 
bless thee and keep thee. The Lord make his face shine 
upon thee and be gracious unto thee. The Lord lift up his 
countenance upon thee and give thee peace.” Thus were 
they to put the name of God upon the children of Israel, 
and the promise of God was that he would bless them, Num. 
vi. 24-27. In conformity with this commission to the house 
of Aaron, it was a universal custom in the worship of the 
Jews, both in the temple and in their synagogues, for the 
people to receive the blessing only at the mouth of the 
priests, the sons of Aaron. If none of these priests were 
present, another was accustomed to invoke the blessing of 
God, supplicating in the prayer the triple blessings of the 
benediction, that the assembly might not retire unblessed ; 


THE BENEDICTION. 375 


but this was carefully distinguished from the sacerdotal 
benediction.’ 

This view of the subject may perhaps aid us in forming 
a just idea of the nature and import of the sacerdotal bene- 
diction. The term benediction is used to express both the 
act of blessing and that of consecrating, two distinct religious 
rites. The sacerdotal benediction, according to the views 
above expressed, seems to be a brief prayer, offered with pe- 
culiar solemnity unto God for his blessing upon the people, by 
one who has been duly set apart to the service of the ministry 
as an intercessor with God in their behalf.’ 

Both this and the other forms of benediction, in the acts 
of consecration and dedication, are exclusively the acts of 
the clergy. Only the higher grades of the clergy were per- 
mitted in the ancient church to enjoy this prerogative. The 
council of Ancyra and others restricted it to bishops and 
presbyters.* And in all Christian churches it is still a gen- 
eral rule that none but a clergyman is entitled to pronounce 
the benediction. In the Lutheran Church none but an or- 
dained clergyman is duly authorized to perform this rite. 
The licentiate accordingly includes himself in the petition, 
saying, not as the ordained minister, The Lord bless you, 
etc., but, The Lord bless us. And if a layman is officiating, 
he includes the form of benediction in his prayer, varying 
yet again the emphasis, and saying, The Lord bless us, ete. 
Their doctrine is that the minister stands in the place of 
Christ to bless the people in his name, and that in the bene- 
diction there is an actual conferring of the blessing of God 


2 Vitringa, De Synagoga, Lib. 3, part 2, c. 20. 

3 According to Ambrose, the benediction is, sanctificationibus et gra- 
tiarum vot va collatio—votiva ; quia benedicens vovet et optat.—J. Gret- 
seri, Vol. V. 178, in Lib. 1, De Benedictionibus. 

4 Cone. Nic. c. 18. Ancyr. c. 18. Neo Caesari, c. 13. Constit. 
Apost. Lib. 8, ο. 28. 


910 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


upon the people—of which, however, none are partakers 
but those who receive it in faith.2 Such also is the Roman 
Catholic doctrine of the priesthood, derived from the prel- 
acy of the ancient church. Immediately upon the rise of 
episcopacy the clergy began to claim kindred with the Jew- 
ish priesthood. The bishop became the representative of 
the Lord Jesus Christ; and the priesthood, like that of the 
Jews, the mediators between God and man. This delusive 
dogma changed the character of the Christian ministry. 
They now became the priests of a vicarious religion, minis- 
tering before the Lord for the people, as the medium of com- 
municating his blessing to them. This perversion of the 
Christian idea of the ministry, which in an evil hour was 
put forth as the doctrine of the church, opened the way for 
infinite superstitions, and did more harm to spiritual Chris- 
tianity than any single delusion that ever afflicted the 
church of Christ. It is remarkable, however, that neither 
the New Testament nor primitive Christianity gives us any 
intimation of a vicarious priesthood. 

With reference to the intercessory office of the Jewish 
priesthood, Christ our Mediator and Intercessor with the 
Father is, indeed, styled our great High Priest, Heb. iv. 
14; comp. also, ii. 17; ili. 1; v. 10. His benediction he 
pronounced upon little children when he took them in his 
arms and blessed them, Mark x. 16. In his separation 
from his disciples at Bethany, when he was about to return 
unto his Father in heaven, he ended his instructions to them 
by pronouncing upon them his final benediction: “ He lifted 
up his hands and blessed them; and it came to pass that, 
while he blessed them, he was parted from them and carried 
up into heaven,” Luke xxiv. 50, 51. These acts, however, 

5 Witness thousands prostrating themselves to receive the benedic- 


tion of the pope at Rome, and the whole house of American bishops 
kneeling to receive the blessing of a fellow-bishop. 


THE BENEDICTION. 317 


have no reference to the sacerdotal benedictions οἱ the 
Jewish priesthood. They are only the expressions of the 
benevolent spirit of our Lord; the manifestations of that 
love wherewith he loved his own to the end. 

The apostles, also, frequently begin and end their epistles 
with an invocation of the blessing of God upon those to 
whom they write; sometimes in a single sentence, and some- 
times with a triple form of expression, analogous to the 
Aaronitic benediction. But these, again, appear to be only 
general and customary expressions of the benevolent desires 
of the writer toward those whom he addresses. They are 
a brief prayer to the Auther of all good for his blessing 
upon the persons addressed. Whatever be the form of the 
salutation, it is only expressive of the love and benevolence 
which swelled the hearts of the apostles toward the beloved 
brethren to whom they wrote. 

But in all the writings of the New Testament we have no 
indication of the use of the sacerdotal benediction, in the 
Jewish and prelatical sense of the term, in the religious 
worship of the apostolical: churches. It appears, indeed, 
not to have been a religious rite, either in the apostolical or 
primitive churches, during the first or second century. 
Neither the apostolical fathers, nor Justin Martyr, nor Ter- 
tulliian make any mention of the sacerdotal benediction. 
This omission of a religious rite, in itself so becoming and 
impressive, is the more remarkable in the primitive Chris- 
tians, inasmuch as they, in other things, so closely imitated 
the rites of the Jewish synagogue, in which this was an es- 
tablished and important part of religious worship. 

In regard to the reasons of this omission writers upon the 
subject are not agreed. Some suppose that the secret disci- 
pline of the church afforded occasion for this omission. The 
doctrine of the Trinity was one of these sacred mysteries 
which were carefully concealed from the uninitiated. So 

32 ἢ 


378 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


scrupulous were the churches on this point that, for a time, 
even the use of the Lord’s Prayer was prohibited in public 
assemblies for religious worship, because it was thought that 
it conveyed an allusion to this sacred and hidden mystery. 

Others suppose that the occurrence of the sacred name of 
God, wip, to the Jews, verbum horrendi carminis—which 
none but the high-priest was ever permitted to pronounce, 
and he only once a year, on the great day of the atonement 
—that the occurrence of this awful name of Jehovah was, 
to the early Christians, a reason for omitting the sacerdotal 
benediction.° 

But the reader, we doubt not, has anticipated us in as- 
signing altogether another reason for the extraordinary 
omission of the sacerdotal benediction in the primitive 
church. Was it not the superintending providence of God 
which graciously withheld the apostles and primitive Chris- 
tians from adopting a rite rendered obsolete by the great 
atoning sacrifice of the High Priest of our profession and 
susceptible of unutterable abuses, as the subsequent history 
of the church too clearly shows? It is another instance of 
those remarkable omissions of which Archbishop Whately 
has largely treated, with consummate ability, in different 
works. He has noticed the wise precaution with which 
God in his providence so ordered events that no possible 
trace should be found in the primitive church of any pre- 
scribed mode of church government, to the exclusion of all 
others; or of a creed, or catechism, or confession, or form 
of prayer, or liturgy upon which superstition could seize as 
an invariable rule of faith and practice, and abuse to sup- 
port a sanctimonious religion which should conform to the 
letter, but disregard the spirit of his word. Such an omis- 


6 Siegel, Handbuch, Vol. 11. 5. 114. J.H.Haenen, Exercit. de 
ritu benedictionis sacerdotalis. Jenae, 1682, cited by Siegel. Augusti, 
Denkwiirdigkeiten, Vol. X. S. 179, 180. 


THE BENEDICTION. 979 


sion he regards as “literally miraculous.” Copying so 
closely after the synagogue, and yet, against all their Jew- 
_ ish prejudices, dropping this rite of their synagogue-worship, 
the apostles must, on the same principle, be supposed to 
have been supernaturally withheld from taking that course 
which would naturally have appeared to them so desirable. 

The apostolical benediction, then, in spirit and in import, 
is altogether unlike the Aaronitic benediction of the Jews 
or the prelatical blessing of the bishop and priest. It is 
nothing more than a brief prayer, a benevolent desire, offered 
with solemnity unto God, for his blessing upon the people. 
The several forms of expression are one in meaning, and 
express the desire that the blessing of God, both spiritual 
and temporal, may be and abide with the worshiping as- 
sembly. The clergyman alone pronounces the benediction, 
not in the vicarious character of mediator or intercessor be- 
tween God and his people, but solely in conformity with the 
apostolic precept, requiring all things to be done decently 
and in order. We now return to the prelatical use of the 
benediction. 


II. Mode of administering the rite. 

The Jewish priests pronounced the blessing standing and 
facing the people, with the arms uplifted, the hands out- 
spread and with a peculiar position of the fingers ;' the 
congregation meanwhile standing. The attitude of the 
assembly and of the officiating priest was the same in the 
Christian church. But the words of the benediction were 
chanted, and the sign of the cross was given. 

The sign of the cross, both in the Eastern and Western 
churches, was regarded as indispensable in the benediction. 
This sign is still retained, not only by the Roman Catholics, 

7 Vitringa, De Synagoga, Lib. 3, p. 2, c. 20, p.1118. Vitringa, 
Hadria Reland, Antiq. Sac. Vet. Heb. p. 102. 


380 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


but even by many Protestants. The Lutherans make use 
of it, not only in the benediction, but in the consecration of 
the elements, in baptism, ordination, confirmation, absolu- 
tion, ete. The Church of England also retained the sign 
in baptism.* But how extensively it is observed at present 
in that church the writer is not informed. 

The benediction was sometimes sung, sometimes chanted, 
and sometimes pronounced as a prayer. There was no gen- 
eral rule or uniform custom on the subject. But when 
offered in connection with the responses of the people, it 
was sung and the responses chanted. Such, according to 
Augustine, is still the custom of the Lutheran Church, and 
to some extent also of the other Reformed churches. 

In many places the benediction is pronounced twice; once 
at the close of the sermon, and again at the conclusion of 
the worship. 

In Catholic churches the congregation kneel or incline 
the head while the benediction is pronounced. The priest, 
arrayed in clerical robes, stands with uplifted hands and a 
peculiar arrangement of the fingers, speaking in the Latin 


8 See canon 30, where it is sanctioned and defended at length. The 
following is given, among many instances of the studied and super- 
stitious formalities which have been observed to give a mysterious 
significancy to this sign of the cross in the benediction: “Graeci aeque 
atque Latini, quinque digitis, et tota manu crucem signantes benedi- 
cunt. Differunt quod Latini, omnibus digitis extensis, Graeci indice 
medio ac minimo extensis ac modicum incurvatis, non ita tamen, ut 
inter se respondeant; sed pollex directione sit, rectaque respiciens, 
medius, pollicis incurvatione, introrsum vergat, minimus, inter polli- 
cem et medium dirigatur; police super annularis ad sese moderate 
deflexi unguem apposito id agunt. Qua se ratione et tres divinas 
personas, digitis nempe tribus extensis; et duas in Christo naturas ; 
duobus ad se junctis, rentur significare.”— Leo Allatius, De Eccl. Occid. 
et Orient. censens., Lib. 3, c. 18, pp. 1857-1861, cited by Augusti. 


» 


THE BENEDICTION. 381 


tongue in an elevated tone and with a prolonged accent 
resembling a chant. 


REMARKS. 


1. The sacerdotal benediction was very early made the 
means of enhancing the sanctity of the clerical office gen- 
erally, and especially of that of the bishop. 

It was supposed to have a peculiar efficacy in propitiating 
the favor of Heaven. A mysterious, magic influence was 
ascribed to it. Even Chrysostom seems to have supposed 
that it rendered one invulnerable against the assaults of 
sin and the shafts of Satan.’ Accordingly it became to the 
clergy a convenient means by which to impress upon the 
people a sense of the peculiar sanctity of their own office, 
and the importance of the blessings which the people might 
receive at their hands. Even kings reverently bowed to 
receive the benediction of the bishops, who especially were 
not slow to take advantage of this popular impression, and 
early claimed the exclusive right of blessing the people. 
The subordinate clergy having been duly consecrated by 
them, were permitted in their absence and as their repre- 
sentatives to pronounce the benediction upon the people. 
Still the act was virtually that of the bishops. (ει facit 
per alium facit per se. So that all clerical grace centred 
in the bishop, and from him, through his clergy, descended 
upon the people of his diocese.” In this way the rite be- 
came the means of exalting the office of the bishop, and of 


9 Imo vero, mihi ne commodes horas duas, sed tibi ipsi, ut ex ora- 
tione patrum aliquam consolationem percipias, ut benedictionibus ple- 
nus recedas, ut omni exparte securus abeas, ut spiritualibus acceptis 
armis invictus diabolo et inexpregnabilis fias.—Cited by Siegel, Hund- 
buch, Vol. 11. 8. 111, Vol. III. p. 64, C. Benedict. Ed. Paris, 1837. 

10 J. H. Bohmer, Jus. Protestant, Lib. 3, vit. 40, 22 14 and 41. 


» 


382 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


inspiring the people with profound reverence for him and 
his official character. 

2. The sacerdotal benediction was soon perverted from 
its original and simple use, and bestowed on various occa- 
sions upon a great variety of persons and things. 

If the clerical benediction was attended with such benefits 
to the people in their religious assemblies, the same effects 
might be expected upon different classes of persons. Cate- 
chumens, accordingly, and candidates for baptism, energu- 
mens, penitents, etc., became the separate subjects of this 
rite. Persons of every description and condition pressed 
to receive the blessing of the priest. Even in the age of 
Constantine this rage for the blessing of the clergy was 
forcibly manifested in its manifold applications to different 
classes of persons." To what a pitch of extravagant folly 
and superstition it afterward arose is sufficiently manifest 
in the rituals, missals and agenda of the Romish Church. 

3. The perversions of this religious rite afford another 
illustration of the consequences of a departure from the 
simplicity and spirituality which become the worship of 
God. 

Possessed with the idea that clerical grace belonged to 
the ecclesiastical order, and might be imparted to another 


11 Gretser gives the following instances, among many others, to 
show in what estimation the blessing of the priest was held: Cum 
S. Epiphanius episcopnus Salaminae Cypri Hierosolymis versaretur, 
omnis aetatis et sexus turba confluebat offerens parvulas (ad benediction- 
em) pedes deosculans, fimbrias vellens, ita ut gradum promovere non 
valens, in uno loco vix fluctus undantis populi sustineret.— Vol. V. p. 190. 
So also the venerable Bede, in his Hist. Eccl. Lib. 3, c. 26: In mag- 
na erat veneratione tempore illo religionis habitus, ita ut ubicunque 
clericus aliquis aut monculius adveniret, gaudentur ab omnibus, tan- 
quam Dei famulus exciperetur, et jam si in itinere pergens inveniretur 
accurrebant,-et flexa cervice, vel manu signari vel ore illius se bene- 
dici gaudebant.—Cited by Gretser, as above. 


THE BENEDICTION. 383 


by their benediction, men sought this blessing on many, 
and often on frivolous, occasions. It became an essential 
rite in almost all the ordinances of religion, and was pro- 
nounced upon all classes of persons. It also became essen- 
tially the consecrating act by which men were inducted into 
the different orders and offices of the church. If clerical 
consecration gave a religious sanctity to men, so might it 
also to whatever else was to be set apart to a religious use. 
Hence the consecration not only of the bread and wine of 
the eucharist, but of the church, the altar, the bell, the or-. 
gan, the holy water, the baptismal water, and of almost 
everything that belonged to the sanctuary or could be em- 
ployed in its service. 

If the blessing of heaven could in this manner be im- 
parted to man, so might it be also to his fields, his flocks, 
his herds and whatever else might be employed or improved 
for his benefit. Indeed it would be difficult to say what 
class of men, or what, amidst all that is devoted to the ser- 
vice of man, has not at some time been the subject of sacer- 
dotal benediction.” 

When once the mind has taken its departure from the 
great principles of religion, which, whether relating to faith 
or practice, are few and simple, it wanders, in endless mazes 
lost, uncertain where or upon what to settle and be again 
at rest. So easy and natural, and so disastrous withal, is 
the descent of the human mind from that which is inward 


122 The Gregorian Sacramentary, for example, specifies the following 
particulars in which the benediction of the priest was pronounced,— 
Benedictio domus—et novae domus.—putei—uvae vel favi—Ad_fru- 
ges novas—Ad omnia quae volueris—crinis novae—agni et aliarum 
carnium—Casei et ovorum—Ad quemcunque fructum novarum arbo- 
rum—Peregrinantium, itinerantium. To which many things have 
been added, such as Navis—Armorum, ensis, pilei et vexilli, turris, 
Thalami conjugalis, sepulchri, ete. 


984 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


and spiritual in religion, and pure and simple in its mani- 
festation, to that which is outward and formal. 

4. The foregoing considerations suggest another strong 
objection to prelacy—its tendency to superstition. 

It is indeed a besetting sin in man to give a misdirection 
to his religious feelings by a veneration for unworthy ob- 
jects, or by an inordinate reverence for what is really vene- 
rable in religion. Every religious ceremony, however ap- 
propriate, is liable to degenerate into a mere form, and 
consequently to encourage superstition. But this danger 
is immensely increased by the multiplication of rites and 
forms. The attention given to them soon becomes inordi- 
nate, extravagant, superstitious. The tendency to supersti- 
tion increases in proportion to the number and insignificance 
of the objects which are thus invested with religious venera- 
tion. In the episcopal system there is much to create and 
foster such a tendency. This profound veneration for saints 
and saints’ days, and for things that have been the subject 
of episcopal consecration, this punctilious observance of 
festivals and fasts, this scrupulous adherence to the rubric 
and the letter of the prayer-book, this anxious attention to 
clerical costume, to attitudes and postures,—what is it all 
but superstition, giving a religious importance to that which 
has nothing to do with heartfelt and practical religion ? 
Even the Bishop of London in a late charge, whiie he pro- 
fessedly condemns the Oxford superstitions, expresses great 
anxiety that the rubric should be closely adhered to, wishes 
all his clergy to preach in white, sees “no harm” in two 
wax candles, provided they are not lighted, and approves of 
the arrangement “lately adopted in several churches, by 
which the clergyman looks to the south while reading pray- 
ers, and to the west while reading lessons!” 

5. Episcopacy encourages indirectly, if it does not di- 
rectly inculcate, the notion of a vicarious religion. 


THE BENEDICTION. 385 


Ancient prelacy transformed the minister of Christ, under 
the gospel dispensation, into a Levitical priest. By this 
means the Christian religion was changed into something 
more resembling Judaism or Paganism than Christianity. 
The priesthood became a distinct order, created by the ap- 
pointment of God and invested with high prerogatives as a 
vicarious propitiatory ministry for the people ;—the con- 
stituted medium of communicating grace from God to man.” 
The nature of the sacraments was changed. The sacra- 
mental table became an altar, and the contributions of the 
people an offering to the Lord. Papacy has held firmly to 
this doctrine of a vicarious religion down to the present 
time. Indeed no small share of the corruptions of that 
“mystery of iniquity” originated in its false idea of the 
Christian ministry. 

Protestantism at the Reformation was but half divorced 
. from this delusion, and indications of its existence are still 
manifest in Protestant episcopacy, The very name of 
“priest” is carefully retained; one of the second order of 
the clergy is not a minister, a presbyter, a pastor in the 
ritual, but always a “priest.” The bishop is a reverend or 
right reverend “father in God.” And then that clerical 
grace which flows only through this appointed channel of 
communication between God and man, the grace that is 
given by the imposition of the bishop’s hands, the grace 
imparted to regenerate the soul in baptism, the grace that 
establishes the soul and seals the covenant in confirma- 
tion, the mysterious grace imparted in the benediction—pro- 
vided always, that the act be duly solemnized by a priest 
divinely appointed and episcopally ordained,—verily, all 
these resemble more the ministrations of the Levitical 
priesthood than of the pastors and teachers whom Christ 


’ 


13 Sacerdos constituitur medius inter Deum et populum.—TZh. Aqui- 
nas, Summa 3, p. 22. 
33 R 


3986 ᾿ΠΉΗΞΠ PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


gave “for the perfecting of the saints for the work of the 
ministry.” 

Momentous consequences followed from the substitution 
of a vicarious priesthood. No church without a bishop, 
apostolical succession, divine right, the exclusive validity 
of episcopal ordination, baptismal regeneration, the mys- 
terious efficacy of the sacraments, the grace of episcopal 
benediction and confirmation; truly these are awful mys- 
teries; and they affect more or less the whole economy of 
grace. The natural results of such a faith are seen in the 
movements of the Tractarians and the Ritualists. The 
great object of these “unprotestantizing” reformers is to re- 
instate in the church the prelatical ministry of other days 
and to restore a vicarious religion with its endless absurdi- 
ties and superstitions. Thus “the character of the church 
of Christ is changed. She is made to stand in the place of 
the Redeemer, whose work is marred. His atonement is 
incomplete, his righteousness insufficient. Ceremonies are 
multiplied, and the kingdom of God is no longer righteous- 
ness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. The office of 
the ministers is of course entirely changed and their true 
character lost. Thunders more awful than those of Sinai 
are heard. All is discouragement: the object of the Chris- 
tian ministry in their hands being apparently to try how 
difficult, how painful, how uncertain the Christian’s course 
can be made with that ministry, and how impossible with- 
out it? 

“Tn a word, their steps are dark, their ministrations mys- 
terious; suited rather to the office of a priest of some heathen 
mythology than of ambassadors from Christ, ministers of 
the everlasting gospel, whose feet are beautiful upon the 
mountains as those that bring glad tidings, that publish 
peace. 

“The aspect which it wears toward those of other com- 


THE BENEDICTION. 387 


munions is fearful in the extreme. No purity of faith, no 
labor of love, no personal piety, no manifestation of the 
fruits of the spirit, will avail anything. Though steadfast 
in faith, joyful through hope and rooted in charity, they 
pass not through the eye of this needle, and shall not seek 
the kingdom of God.” 

The great evil of such a system is that it is a religion of 
forms, of mysterious rites and awful prerogatives. Heaven 
in mercy save us from a religion which substitutes these 
things for the gospel of the grace of God, through Jesus 
Christ our Lord! To episcopacy in any form, the one great 
objection which includes almost all others is this—it un- 
avoidably, if not intentionally, encourages that besetting sin 
of man—the innate propensity to substitnte the outward form 
for the inward spirit of religion. 

We close, therefore, this protracted view of the Govern- 
ment and Worship of the Primitive Church with a pro- 
found impression of the greatness of that wisdom from on 
high, which guided the apostles in adopting an organization 
so simple and at the same time so efficient in promoting 
those great ends for which the church of Christ was insti- 
tuted; which also directed them in the establishment of 
those simple and impressive forms of worship, which most 
happily promote the spirituality and sincerity in the wor- 
ship of God that alone are well pleasing in his sight. Nor 
can we resist the conviction that the substitution of the 
episcopal government and worship for the apostolical was 
an efficient if not the principal cause of that degeneracy 
and formality which soon succeeded to the primitive spirit- 
uality and purity of the church. It began in the multipli- 
cation of church officers and ceremonies. Everything that 
could attract attention to religion by its pomp and ceremony 
was carefully brought to the aid of the church. It had 
been alleged by the heathen as an objection to the Christians 


388 THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 


that they had no solemn rites, nothing attractive, nothing 
imposing to command the admiration of men. To obviate 
this objection and reconcile the heathen to the Christian 
religion, not a few even of these pagan rites, with a little 
variation, were incorporated into the rituals of the churches. 
After this fatal departure from the spirit of the gospel, the 
progress of declension exhibited in constantly increasing 
ostentation and formality was easy and rapid. The elegant 
and forcible language of Robert Hall is the happiest ex- 
pression which we can give to our view of this speedy and 
disastrous degeneracy: “The descent of the human mind 
from the spirit to the letter, from what is vital and intel- 
lectual to what is ritual and external in religion, is the true 
source of idolatry and superstition in all the multifarious 
forms which they have assumed; and as it began early to 
corrupt the religion of nature, or more properly of patri- 
archal tradition, so it soon obscured the lustre and destroyed 
the simplicity of the Christian institute. In proportion as 
genuine devotion declined, the love of pomp and ceremony 
increased. The few and simple rites of Christianity were 
extolled beyond all reasonable bounds; new ones were in- 
vented, to which mysterious meanings were attached, till 
the religion of the New Testament became in process of 
time as insuportable as the Mosaic law ” 


APPENDIX. 


Tue reader will better understand the propriety of Milton’s de- 
nomination of the Episcopal liturgy—“an extract of the mass trans- 
lated” —by comparing some extracts from the Mass Book with cor- 


responding portions from the Book of Common Prayer. 


For the sake 


of comparison they are set in parallel columns: 


FESTIVALS. 


MASS BOOK. 


A Table of the Festivals, which are 
to be observed by all the Catholics 
of the U. States, according to the 
last Regulations of the Holy See. 
All the Lord’s days throughout 

the year. 

Circumcision. 

Epiphany. 

Purification. 

St. Matthias. 

St. Joseph. 

Annunciation. 

St. Mark. 

St. Philip and St. James. 
Finding of the Cross. 
Nativity of St. John Baptist. 
St. Peter and St. Paul. 

St. James. 

St. Ann. 

St. Lawrence. 

Assumption. 

St. Bartholomew. 

Nativity of the Blessed Virgin. 
Exaltation of the Holy Cross. 
St. Matthew. 

St. Michael. 

St. Luke. 

St. Simon and St. Jude. 

All Saints. 

All Souls. 

St. Andrew. 


33 # 


PRAYER BOOK. 


A Table of Feasts, to be observed 
in this Church, throughout the 
Year. 

All Sundays in the Year. 
The Cireumcision of our Lord 

Jesus Christ. 

The Epiphany. 

The Conversion of St. Paul. 

The Purification of the Blessed 
Virgin. 

St. Matthias the Apostle. 

The Annunciation of the Bless- 
ed Virgin. 

St. Mark the Evangelist. 

St. Philip and St. James, the 

Apostles. 

The Ascension of our Lord Jesus 

Christ. 


_ St. Barnabas. 


The Nativity of St. John the 
Baptist. 

St. Peter the Apostle. 

St. James the Apostle. 

St. Bartholomew the Apostle. 

St. Matthew the Apostle. 

St. Michael and all Angels. 

St. Luke the Evangelist. 


St. Simon and St. Jude, the 
Apostles. 
All Saints. 
St. Andrew the Apostle. 
389 


390 


MASS 30 K. 


Conception. 

St. Thomas. 
Christmas. 

St. Stephen. 

St. John. 

Holy Innocents. 
Easter Monday. ° 
Easter Tuesday. 
Ascension Day. 
Whitsun Monday. 
Whitsun Tuesday. 
Corpus Christi Day. 


APPENDIX. 


PRAYER BOOK. 


St. Thomas the Apostle. 

The Nativity of our Lord Jesus 
Christ. 

St. Stephen the Martyr. 

St. John the Evangelist. 

The Holy Innocents. 

Monday and Tuesday in Kas- 
ter Week. 

Monday and Tuesday in Whit- 
sun Week. 


FASTS. 


The forty days of Lent. 

The ember days at the four sea- 
sons, being the Wednesday, Friday 
and Saturday of the first week in 
Lent; of Whitsun Week; after the 
14th of September ; and of the third 
week in Advent. : ἢ 

The Wednesdays and Fridays 
of all the four weeks of Advent. 

The vigils or eves of Whitsun- 
day; of the Saints Peter and Paul; 
of the Assumption of the Blessed 
Virgin; of All Saints, and of 
Christmas Day. 

All Fridays throughout the 
year. The abstinence on Satur- 
day is dispensed with, for the 
faithful throughout the United 
States, for the space of ten years 
(from 1833), except when a fast 
falls on Saturday. 


Ash- Wednesday. 

Good-Friday. 

Other Days of Fasting ; on which 
the Church requires such a Measure 
of Abstinence as is more especially 
suited to extraordinary Acts and 
Exercises of Devotion. 

The Season of Lent. 

The ember-days at the four 
seasons, being the Wednesday, 
Friday and Saturday after the 
first Sunday in Lent, the Feast 
of Pentecost, September 14 and 
December 13. 

The three Rogation Days, being 
the Monday, Tuesday. and Wed- 
nesday before Holy Thursday, or 
the Ascension of our Lord. 

All the Fridays in the year, ex- 
cept Christmas Day. 


PREFACE. 


It is truly meet, and just, right 
and available that we always, and 


in all places, give thanks to thee, 


O holy Lord, Father Almighty, 
eternal God: Through Christ our 
Lord; by whom the Angels praise 
thy Majesty, the dominations 
adore it, the powers tremble be- 
fore it, the heavens and the hea- 
venly virtues, and blessed Sera- 
phim, with common joy; glorify 
it: With whom we beseech thee, 
that we may be admitted to join 
our voices; saying in an humble 
manner :— 


Dearly beloved brethren, the 
Scripture moveth us in sundry 
places to acknowledge and confess 
our manifold sins and wickedness, 
and that we should “ποὺ dissemble 
nor cloak them before the face of 
Almighty God, our heavenly Fa- 
ther, but confess them with an 
humble, lowly, penitent and obe- 
dient heart; to the end that we 
may obtain forgiveness of the 
same by his infinite goodness and 
merey. And although we ought, 
at all times. humbly to acknow- 
ledge our sins before God; yet 


APPENDIX. 


MASS BOOK. 


[The Lord’s Prayer often re- 
peated. ] 


Gloria Patria. 


Glory be to the Father, and to 
the Son, and to the Holy Ghost; 

As it was in the beginning, is 
now, and ever shall be, world 
without end. 


-The Benedicite, or Canticle of the 
Three Children. Daniel iii. 


All ye works of the Lord, bless 
the Lord: praise and exalt him 
above all, for ever. 

O all ye angels of the Lord, 
bless the Lord; O ye heavens, 
bless the Lord. 


O all ye waters that are above 
the heavens, bless the Lord; O 
all ye powers of the Lord, bless 
the Lord. 


9591 


PRAYER BOOK. 


ought we chiefly so to do, when 
we assemble and meet together, 
to render thanks for the great 
benefits that we have received at 
his hands, to set forth his most 
worthy praise, to hear his most 
holy word, and to ask those things 
which are requisite and neces- 
sary, as well for the body as the 
soul. Wherefore I pray and be- 
seech you, as many as are here 
present, to accompany me, with a 
pure heart and humble voice, 
unto the throne of the heavenly 
grace, saying :— * 
[Similar repetitions. ] 


Gloria Patri. 


Glory be to the Father, and to 
the Son and to the Holy Ghost. ἡ 

As it was in the beginning, is 
now, andever shall be, world with- 
out end. 

[‘‘ By this rubric.” say the Com- 
missioners of 1661, ‘‘the Gloria 
Patri is appointed to be said six 
times ordinarily, in every morn- 
ing and evening service, frequent- 
ly eight times in the morning and 
sometimes ten; which, we think, 
carries with it, at least, an ap- 
pearance of that vain repetition 
which Christ forbids.”’] 


Benedicite, omnia opera Domini. 


O all ye Works of the Lord, 
bless ye the Lord; praise him, 
and magnify him for ever. 

O ye Angels of the Lord, bless 
ye the Lord; praise him, and 
magnify him for ever. 

O ye Heavens, bless ye the 
Lord; praise him, and magnify 
him for ever. 

O ye Waters that be above the 
Firmament, bless ye the Lord; 
praise him, and magnify him for 
ever. 

O all ye Powers of the Lord, 
bless ye the Lord; praise him, 
and magnify him for ever, ete. 


992 


APPENDIX. 


CREEDS. 


The creeds are both taken entire from the Roman Catholic ritual. 


MASS BOOK. 


I believe in God the Father 
Almighty, Maker of Heaven and 
Earth, ete. 


PRAYER BOOK. 
The Apostles’ Creed. 
I believe in God the Father 
Almighty, Maker of Heaven and 
Earth, ete. 


THE LITANY. 


The Litany is little else than a transcript and amplification of the 
Roman Catholic Litany of the saints, blended with the Litany of 


Jesus. 


Lord, have merey upon us. 

Christ, have mercy upon us. 

Christ, hear us. 

Christ, listen to us. 

Father of heaven, God, have 
merey upon us. 


O God, the Son, Redeemer of 
the world, have mercy upon us. 


O God, the Holy Ghost, have 
mercy upon us. 


Holy Trinity, one God, have 
merey upon us. 


Holy Mary, pray for us. 
Holy mother of God, pray for us. 
Saint Michael, pray for us, etc. 
Be gracious to us, spare us, 
Lord. 
Be gracious to us, hear us, God. 
From all evil; 
Deliver us, Lord. 
From all sin; 
Deliver us. 
From thy wrath; 
Deliver us. 
From sudden and unprovided 
death ; 
Deliver us. 
From the snares of the devil; 
Deliver us. 
From wrath, hatred and all evil 
desires ; 
Deliver us. 


O God, the Father of heaven, 
have mercy upon us, miserable 
sinners. 

O God, the Son, Redeemer of 
the world, have mercy upon us 
miserable sinners. 

O God, the Holy Ghost, pro- 
ceeding from the Father and the 
Son, have mercy upon us misera- 
ble sinners. 

O holy, blessed and glorious 
Trinity, three persons and one 
God, have merey upon us mis- 
erable sinners. 


Remember not, Lord, our of- 
fences, nor the offences of our 
forefathers; neither take thou 
vengeance of our sins. 

Spare us, good Lord, spare thy 
people, whom thou hast redeemed 
with thy most precious blood, and 
be not angry with us for ever; 

Spare us, good Lord. 

From all evil and mischief, 
from sin; from the crafts and as- 
saults of the devil, from thy wrath, 
and from everlasting damnation; 

Good Lord, deliver us. 

From all blindness of heart, 
from pride, vain glory and hypoc- 
risy, from envy. hatred and mal- 
ice, and all uncharitableness ; 

Good Lord, deliver us. 


APPENDIX. 


MASS BOOK. 
From the spirit of fornication ; 
Deliver us. 


From lightning and tempest; 
Deliver us. 

From everlasting death: 
Deliver us. 


By the mystery of thy holy in- 
carnation ; Deliver us. 
By thine advent; 
Deliver us. 
By thy nativity ; 
Deliver us. 
By thy baptism and holy fast- 
ing; Deliver us. 
By thy cross and passion ; 
Deliver us, Lord. 
By thy death and burial; 
Deliver us, Lord. 
By thine admirable resurrec- 
tion ; Deliver us. 
By the coming of the Holy 
Ghost, the Paraclete ; 
Deliver us. 
In the day of judgment; 
Deliver us. 
We sinners beseech thee to hear 
us. 
That thou wouldst spare; 
We beseech thee. 
That thou wouldst deign to lead 
us to true repentance ; 
We beseech thee. 
That thou wouldst deign to 
grant peace and true concord to 
Christian kings and princes; 
We beseech thee. 


That thou wouldst deign to pre- 
serve the apostolical master, and 
all the ecclesiastical ranks in our 
sacred religion; 

We beseech thee to hear us. 

That thou wouldst deign to hum- 
ble all the enemies of the holy 
Church ; 

We beseech thee to hear us. 
. That thou wouldst deign to lav- 
ish on the whole Christian people 
peace and unity, we beseech thee. 


393 


PRAYER BOOK. 

From all inordinate and sinful 
affections, from all the deceits of 
the world, the flesh and the devil ; 

Good Lord. deliver us. 

From lightning and _ tempest, 
from plague, pestilence and fam- 
ine, from battle and murder, and 
trom sudden death ; 

Good Lord, deliver us. 

By the mystery of thy boly in- 
carnation, by thy holy nativity, 
and cireumcision, by thy baptism, 
fasting and temptation ; 

Good Lord, deliver us. 


By thine agony and _ bloody 
sweat, by thy cross and passion, 
by thy precious death and burial, 
by thy glorious resurrection and 
ascension, and by the coming of 
the Holy Ghost. 

Good Lord, deliver us. 

In all time of our tribulation, in 
all time of our prosperity, in the 
hour of death, and in the day of 
judgment; 

Good Lord, deliver us. 

We sinners do beseech thee to 
hear us, O Lord God, and that it 
may please thee to rule and gov- 
ern thy holy Church universal in 
the right way ; 

We beseech thee to hear us, good 
Lord. 

That it would please thee to 
bless and preserve all Christian 
rulers and magistrates: giving 
them grace to execute justice and 
to maintain truth ; 

We beseech thee to hear us, good 
Lord. 

That it would please thee to 
illuminate all bishops, priests and 
deacons with true knowledge and 
understanding of thy word, that 
both by their preaching and liv- 
ing they may set it forth and show 
it accordingly : 

We beseech thee to hear us, good 
Lord. 

That it may please thee to bless 
and keep all thy people ; 

We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord. 


R* 


994 


MASS BOOK. 


Son of God, we beseech thee. 


O Lamb of God, who takest away 
the sins of the world; 

Spare us, Lord. 

O Lamb of God, who takest away 
the sins of the world, listen to us, 
Lord. 

O Lamb of God, who takest away 
the sins of the world, have mercy 
upon us. 

O Christ, hear us. 

Lord, have pity on us. 

Christ, have pity on us. 

Lord, have pity on us. 


APPENDIX. 


PRAYER BOOK. 

That it may please thee to give 
to all nations unity, peace and 
concord : 
We beseech thee to hear us, good Lord. 

Son of God, we beseech thee to 
hear us. 

O Lamb of God, who takest away 
the sins of the world, grant us thy 
peace. 

O Lamb of God, who takest away 
the sins of the world, have merey 
upon us. 


O Christ, hear us. 

Lord, have mercy upon us. 
Christ, have mercy upon us. 
Lord, have merey upon us. 


The Episcopal Church not only observes many of the holy days, 
festivals and fasts of the Roman Catholic Church, but it copies from 
the ““Mass Book,” with little variation, many of the collects and les- 


sons for those days. 


Preface on Ascension day. 


It is truly meet, and just, right, 
and available, that we always, 
and in all places, give thanks to 
thee, O holy Lord, Father Al- 
mighty, eternal God: through 
Christ our Lord; who, after his 
resurrection, manifested himself 
to all his disciples, and in their 
presence ascended into heaven, to 
make us partakers of his divinity. 
And therefore, with the angels 
and archangels, with the thrones 
and dominations, and with all the 
militia of the heavenly host, we 
sing the hymn of thy glory; say- 
ing, without end: 

Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of 
Sabaoth. The heavens and the 
earth are full of thy glory. Ho- 
sannah in the highest. Blessed 
is he that comes in the name of 
the Lord. Hosannah in the high- 
est. 


Preface on Ascension day. 


It is very meet, right, and our 
bounden duty, that we should at 
all times, and in all places, sive 
thanks unto thee, Ὁ Lord [Holy 
Father], Almighty, everlasting 
God. 

Through thy most dearly be- 
loved Son Jesus Christ our Lord; 
who, after his most glorious resur- 
rection, manifestly appeared to 
all his apostles, and in their sight 
ascended up into heaven, to pre- 
pare a place for us: that where 
he is, thither we might also as- 
eend, and reign with him in 
glory: 

Therefore, with angels and 
archangels, and with all the com- 
pany of heaven, we laud and mag- 
nify thy glorious name; evermore 
praising thee, and saying, Holy, 
holy, holy Lord God of Hosts, 
heaven and earth are full of thy 
glory: Glory be to thee, O Lord 
Most High. Amen. 


In making the above comparison we haye only used the Mass Book 


APPENDIX. 395 


« or Roman Catholic Manual in common use in the United States. But 
we have seen enough to illustrate the popish character of the liturgy 
of the Episcopal Church. To what extent this comparison might be 
carried by reference to all the liturgical books of the Roman Catholics 
we are not informed. But the commissioners who formed the Book 
of Common Prayer, under Edward VI., with Archbishop Cranmer at 
their head, themselves declare that “everything sound and valuable 
in the Romish Missal and Breviary was transferred by them with- 
out scruple to the English Communion Service and to the Common 
Prayer.’ The commissioners who were appointed by Charles IL., 
A. D. 1661, to revise the liturgy also say: “ We humbly desire that 
it may be considered that our first reformers, out of their great 
wisdom, did at that time compose the liturgy so as to win upon the 
papists and to draw them into their church communion BY VERGING 
AS LITTLE AS THEY COULD FROM THE ROMISH FORMS BEFORE IN 
USE.” 

From the first introduction of the English liturgy, in 1548, there 
was a steady return to the superstitions of Popery. So that the pa- 
pists themselves boasted “that the book was a compliance with them 
in a great part of their service ; so were not a little confirmed in their 
superstition and idolatry, expecting rather a return to them, than en- 
deavoring the reformation of themselves.” This return to the Popish 
service became so striking in the reign of Elizabeth, that a body of 
divines was appointed by the Lords in 1641, to take into consideration 
certain “ Innovations in the doctrine and discipline of the Church of 
England.” Among the “innovations in discipline” are enumerated 
the following: 

“1. The turning of the holy table altar-wise, and most commonly 
calling it altar. 

“2. Bowing toward it, or toward the east, many times, with three 
congees, etc. 

“3. Advancing candlesticks in many churches upon the altar so- 
called. ; 

“4 In making canopies over the altar, so-called, with traverses 
and curtains on each side and before it. 

“δ. In compelling all communicants to come up before the rails, 
and there to receive. 


“6. In advancing crucifixes and images upon the altar-cloth so- 
called. 


996 ' APPENDIX. 


“7. In reading some part of Morning Prayer at the holy table when 
there is no communion celebrated. 

“8, By the minister’s turning his back to the west, and his face to 
the east, when he pronounceth the creed or reads prayers. 

“9. By pretending for their innovations the injunctions and adver- 
tisements of Queen Elizabeth, which are not in force, ete. 

“10. By prohibiting a direct prayer before sermon, and bidding of 
prayer.” 

In addition to the above “innovations,” exceptions are made to the 
change in the vestments of the clergy, to the sign of the cross in bap- 
tism, to the absolution of the sick and the burial service—“ the sure 
and certain hope of resurrection to eternal life.” 

The intelligent reader cannot fail to notice the striking similarity, 
we might almost say the perfect identity, of these innovations with those 
which the Ritualists are renewing in the Episcopal Church. What 
is all this mighty movement of that party but another revival of Pop- 
ish superstition? Another return to Popery; another illustration 
of the strong affinities which have eyer subsisted between the Church 
of England and the Church of Rome. 

The objectionable character of those Popish affinities which have 
been the frequent subject of remark in the progress of this work, par- 
ticularly in pp. 311-320, become strikingly apparent in these parallel- 
isms between the Mass Book and the Prayer Book. The design and 
effort of the great ritualistic controversy of the age is to unprotestant- 
ize the Protestant Episcopal Church and reunite it with what Ritual- 
ists and Papists denominate the Holy Catholic Church. The Ritual- 
ists have made the discovery that it is possible to shake off the bond- 
age of Protestantism and yet to remain in the English Church, of 
which they claim to be the only true and consistent members. Upon 
the opposite parties, which they style “ Puritan,” the “ Broad Church,” 
the “ Establishmentarian” and the “High and Dry” sections, they 
lavish their contempt without measure, while they are vigorously 
pushing on “the great Catholic Revival” by restoring “the mysteri- 
ous and symbolical pomp of a Roman Catholic church.” By vest- 
ments, ornaments, attitudes and novelties without number they avow 
themselves to be in their forms of worship “histrionic, both almost 
and altogether.” By these means they expect “to catholicize the 
church” and convert the world. The Reformation was a blunder, or a 
series of blunders. Protestantism is a failure; but on their minds the 


APPENDIX. 397 


true light has arisen which is to enlighten the benighted regions of 
Protestantism. Ritualism, we are told, “is the way to overcome dis- 
sent.” “The great Catholic revival is now drawing all the most 
earnest and most devout of the various Protestant bodies toward the 
church.” It is a great and formidable movement, urged on with tal- 
ent, zeal and energy worthy of a better cause. The power of this Rit- 
ualistic movement is another illustration of the ready assimilation of 
the English to the Romish Church. 

“Of all Protestant churches,” remarks the learned author of Horae 
Biblicae, himself a distinguished civilian and a Roman Catholic, “the 
National Church of England most nearly resembles the Church of 
Rome. It has retained much of the dogma and much of the discipline 
of Roman Catholics. Down to the sub-deacon it has retained the 
whole of their hierarchy; and, like them, has its deans, rural deans, 
chapters, prebends, arch-deacons, rulers and vicars; a liturgy taken 
in a great measure from the Roman Catholic liturgy, and composed, 
like that, of psalms, canticles, the three creeds, litanies, gospels, epis- 
tles, prayers and responses. Both churches have the sacraments of 
Baptism and the Eucharist, the absolution of the sick, the burial ser- 
vice, the sign of the cross in baptism, the reservation of confirmation, 
and order [ordination] to bishops, the difference of episcopal and 
sacerdotal dress, feasts and fasts.” 

We know, indeed, that the Articles of the Church of England 
strongly protest against the errors of Popery and assert the doctrines 
of the Reformation. And this is another verification of the famous 
declaration of Lord Chatham, that the Church of England has “a 
Calvinistic creed, a Popish liturgy and an Arminian clergy.” 

34 


“8 


ἊΣ 


γ᾿ 


ry ἵν 


ie 
ah 
ξ 
7. «μον» 
isle 
” =. 
+ 
{ “- 
ὶ rey 
ci - 
7 
‘oo 
ἰχ ete 
} . 
> - 
' > ainat 
y 
"4 Pee 
yr --— 
¢ *~ n> ee 


4 


is ee La Gis | ; ik 


ote 
od ἔν ἐφπ ὁ dea 
+ i) 
“τῷ 
ν 
γ 
++ tre 
. 
+ 
Te ‘ 
ν᾿ 
δι οὐὸν 
Paves soul 
aa a 
- ’ 
- 
‘ 
oe 
. 
σον τὸ 
τῶν 
2 el 
+ 
ony 
= +e 
4 
ὲ 
᾿ 


[NDE XS. 


INDEX OF TEXTS. 


PAGE 
BPPORIN 1K. POLS. wccvcscecocaccees 373 
Raa nec ace τορος ταῖς ἤει aoesoee 374 
MLV shaces ἘΣΤΕ εκ ΠΡ ot 374 
τ τ τ Rr tates ssaiscvecucaweleceocwae 374 
AWGN DETS® Vi. 24--2ὴ,...... 0.0 .νον ον νιον 374 
See τ I c/s acts cisinis'aen lenses eselsieileduicwoeae Biles 
=== Sa eee ape eae omounneceanet 373 
REN IVEE Netstciciatnec sic atismesasamacienes 373 
Deuteronomy XXVIiil........00.e000- 373 
ΡΥ ΑΚ ΠΡ πο ciscbaceitenescn snl Oemends 
VISA VAN Os vos cccccartececccnsiesctes 519 
Hogans SIV. Ζ244.....ς Ἐς ΕΝ ΕΟ ΤΣ 373 
ieeiers xvi. 34. ......:. τ 373 
πα κι 109. πῆρ κοτε ες 51 
Me PIGSTASTCS! γι 0. τ εις κι ἐσ seen cots 147 
ἈΠ lati leiesiachsiceysucsss vceiweebceeeicessas 51 
Naan 111- 10. Snes cesccsasecnsece 51 
Zephaniah ili. 3.......00.sceeceeceee 186 
REE 1 as cowamon ens crccves 147, 148 
ΠΥ 72 2 ποις ἐος υερονες .147, 148 
ΜΠ Π σὺν 11. θ......β..β.. asks λ εν cane 154 
MVP OE tectrctherdaidueslo navcccenee ees 38 
τος τον EN ΚΟ das slerst joe's daitineseceiss 280 
ΞΞ 19.159... 5... Rosas sees Ὁ 
SG Be a eee ee ees 38 
eA UR τον τος 141 
eV eh — iki schepeseestsceeeres = 9.5 
aa τες A Pa A ne aes ene 29 
ον ἘΠῚ ey Dig os sancciosivee τὶς Pee n siete 51 
ΠΤ sexs 16 τ υξος τ υσος See canseoeeee 376 | 
Kaa Ξ ἢ ΝΣ, πο cetews esierusive’s 29 | 
Vist LA wa sdoacsel seeisasafestsassies 51 
Malcewiwe U5, ὦ πον ον Ἐ ΓΝ 38 
Bley ict icistaiwaleeVaieisiniee osisleeaisveie'ee 278 
NUM OL cccccscecsadMeccessss 51 
SERV AOU, OL, σῆς τόνον deccounas 376 
OME MWe secs ον vccw ence senveee as 148 
ATH des cote caw cuca\as ἐλ 5} 58 141 


PAGE 

JOlaMe lyeco Weed τος Σ, ἘΣ ΡΟΣ ere 301 
KUN cy i Ae ic clas sieve sole enesrasiorsaates ἢ 

WES 15 Oss sa ceectesatenatcancs 52, 851 
Teal S22 each ΕΜΤΑΣ ἐς ὈΡΡ aaa 180 
an Sp inaececadadnas acca ceeteete 5] 
Pa he DA seas weancisesincncece εὐρύτατον 277 
See dias Ay 1.5. Ali sited nannsammericanae 323 
eee ie, WA couscous ode carte daceat aes 352 
File, (OU eararaceeteneteneden stoners 180 
᾿Ξ τ τ etestarelse cane sacle 3D2 
Ξε Vs, DA=9 Wien oet vase secesee tees ΡΤ 
HV cies elvis  Ψ Ε ΡΟΣ tees sees Beh 
SN VD Oi regu sleaace gucne atone 352 
ee ον τ N aisshu ce osihentieeen ee 180 
—— vi. 1-8........ ΤΩΣ ἢ τῆς 28) 92. 2 Oak 
ἘΞ Vil eu Dtics coaeewepasoeasitdcebaie το ayy 
eV AS ΡΠ τις eee: 22 
NMI 172: νει αν ταν ΝΑ, nee 189, 256 
ΞΘ VAT. ΘΕ ΡΤ 6: PEt 
ἘΞ ει ow acide ciecesealeceeeare kell 
een brani, aoire ἔπ σαν Lickin vette en TE 
5ΞΞ AR ae: DA OnE Cen Gah notin depen 180 
a τον i tae Pe eH ΕΣ τα Bee Ale 
Mil opal Giese sesame 31, 32 

xi. 19-24. emery 
ae Me, θυ ΝΑ Στ 191 
——— 1.29, 30 .. BL, 139 
IX OU Am anateseense τ τον 11 
ΞΕ τ το τὰν 147, 158 
PRL en Oc cease once seheeeeimentees . 188 
Seiya Ul ΤῸ ον ΚΤ eae 91 
ΞΕ ΠΡ i Pee λυ robe root enoce 38 
mae RM ΡΣ ΤΡ ΚΤ, τ τ 1 Ὁ eo 
—— xiii. 40, 41.............. ἘΠ ὩΣ 
ἘΞ Ξε ον ΠΤ ΟΣ ΑΚ Ἃ Stoo 
JSD Ve Dolordesessaesoos ol Olas 
aR Ostia de oennedecamcecaaceas 31 
sa KV lRaeesicre sae sseetinnstecseas 32, 98: 


PRR ἐς hae thks ΡΥ ΤῸ 139 
RW Oras τε Στὰ ων οιε, ἐν ομος 365 
RV Sah sake sacdeevae verses μὲ bea: 
RVI GS Dn cevinge sears ete τον ἐρίμεσ νον 323 
UATE (tectuia ἡ ΤῊ ΡΥ ΤΡ ΤΕΣ 38 
RUMI Oe τ τ ΤΙΣ ἘΠ τ παν δ ἀπά 350 
RV ete cee ΡΣ desacees 24, 26, 190 
NUNN τ ἐμ αν ve ane ΛΟ ΞΕ να 189 
ἜΣ ΣΡ ΡΉ ον τ δμν 126,128, 176 
—— xx. 17-28........... 174, 198, 224 
ἘΞ χχ 9 ΤΣ iocesannsteseecees 353 
ξε ε τ τ τ τὰ 355 
ἘΞ τ BR. Doi ΕΗ ΡΝ 126, 224, 356 
ERX OO ao teet toe pac deeaen seeeoanee PART 
Sa XM A Oe sh ceecse vadereeatne 180 
RNID ese aces sc ose στο ἐκίσμνν ἐς 180 
NCR alone aeons ewsssee noes 180 
RiGhiaMstieelisusecescesaushessssress tes 31 
WA Mei Lew arioateenmeencecesenteee 276 
aM Us ΡΣ ΜΡ ΠΡΟ nists ycteemtars 126 
Seen LVS, Og Uae humencaesuaweeueasenth 276 
ὑπ Δ tence eee 126 
a VS UG: cdewneadanie sven ὃν ΕΑ ΟΜΝ α 142 
EVM πε νον sade ooeesenene 94, 95 
EV Undo site causes esse 53) 126, 1.15 
UC Orrell Oss os aden voceanratteetwsses 31 
11. Dsaceeaa/saecauesceneentoeeens 31 
Sa Pls Ses ΕΝ coe 30 
Sa UMS WORT πὲ εσες tes canbansadeecas 190 
as te] Wy OPE eg ENE ae Sta 143 
---- Ὁ δ΄ δι νος πο ΩΣ 89, 103 
VAY canon tr δου νυ ἔρον 33, 89 
ete LI eis eatin ΨΚ {Πα Ὁ 94 
ΞΡ Ξε σεν ΧΡῊ γεν τὴν. ει θά}, ΘΟ ΑΝ 33 
Ville FON wien a ecidielewsieclsolncaleasiottoree 36 
ἔξ δὰ tye dou ve att ΤΉ ΘΕ δ πὸ 180 
ἘΞ Θ΄ Στ δ το κεν τοῖς ΕΣ: ow 
Se Ls ONS bcc cecdeicevseesscitecootts 92 
a, Se ALOT She ν ΥΝ ἘΝ ΕΤΕς- 31 
<a MIT Σὰ Ὁ ἘΨΕΒΉΒ. ΚΦ ἘΜ ΉΤΗΤ ΟῚ. 45 
= ihe ΒΟ ἐν εν δ 141 
ee ΠΝ ΘΟΕ ΤΟΥ ΕΝ 276 
a VIG Uae yawstedcacteccdee 324 
a υνε 9 cece γε ρον cdots see 127, 324 
——-Xiv. 29, 32, ΘΕΟΣ ΤΙΣ δ 147 
=e eR Viler BLA eoRe » tan tee ἐν ρα τ 9: 
EV Oy ΤΉΝ Ἐπ τ ον - BE 82 
“οὐ τον aeaeeee 14 
———— αν 19, 20. ncaveswedesecem 142 
SAVANE Fae ΠΈΡΙ ὩΣ σας Ice cee econo ἃ τὶ 3 
2ACORMS.CGin cabs sathenen pene ees 90 
τς LOS ΜΝ ΑΔΕ ΟΤΑΜΈΕΣ 144 
WAP LOC RO: 23 ὙΞΈΡΒΕΝ, ἐὰν ΕΟ 94 
Wi Uo: So. ΤΌΘ ΜῈ αν. τὸν ee δ 


INDEX OF TEXTS. 


PAGE 
A Cone keller canes siielstaces ΣΝ 32 
Galatians: 145.54. 25ssecee eee 276 
11: PO iewvnves ses ces eee 142 
SS, IM occ, Sede den tek eee 95 
mT, Vek π᾿ 276 
1h ee RAPED ARP etn 5 ..-.-.... 24 
—— iv. 9......... ΕΟ ΕΥΝΟ τ: 276 
a Yu Toadies cab θον ἐν εν ρ έτος eaten 92 
es. OT oi aks ες οῖς ἐς τθες ΞΡ Ἢ 92 
Hplrestane il. 3,0 τι; ες 0i0ce2 sees 45, 147 
ee HAS, Desc ds ccaasadacalcoeareeeeeeee 92 
a ΥΤΡΡΕΡΙ ΠΕΡΙ ΜΕ eevee eee 147 
Se ΉΉΎἝᾷΒρΠ 117 
ΞΕ σέ έΠπΠρὦἕΨἕ[ὖἍΨΕυυιουςο. 45 
Vie WMiastsereces 17, 147, 285,332 
Se TVS 19 =16 35525855 Seeres oe 19 
a UV, A asc th do το eee 19 
Vo 19......μρμνν ον μος sven on OO ERE 
ΞΞΞ We 27... νει ον οι ἀν 145 
1 ΠῚ ΠΝ ἐπ’ τς 32, 54, 143, 174, 198, 224 
li. τσ δ. Lee, 
TNs! died dnc ΟΕ eee 54, 146 
ColOSslaTis, 1. ἡ οκουκορικε ον 54 
Lh. (29s. ΤΡ ΠΡ 276 
a hss Wein Secs ca νου πη 92 
——— Hs, 16,20... fies. ae 276 
JN 1 το σα 323 
LWs eNOS. edit aasee δα 0 - 54, 146 
1 Thessalonians i. 1...... 54, 143, 146 
—— ili. 2............006842.04, 143, 146 
LM 5 li a2 dine’ οὐ νυ acute ee 2 
Wea Len a ΛΕ τ 126, 133 
Ἧς Dall dices λοι τα See pil 
2 Thessalonians i. 1...... 54, 143, 146 
sh) Reel Γ΄, Swear ὙΓΙΉΣ. 16". 94, 95 
1 Timothy 1. Lesesseseeeeees ceeeneees 324 
heres γΕ νι ἐπε {πη τὰ 143, 144 
Sa τ οι ἐν 92, 95 
ἘΞΕΘΒῸ fae] ΤΟΣ eee SA es Se τ 278 
TTS dl 7 caek οι σι τα 122, 13%, 2238 
τς ΡΝ 199, 185 
ΤΆ ΘΗΝ ἯΤΤΑΝ ΤΡΕΎ econ 180, 321 
WING eS See 324 
iv. 14..122, 129,184,189, 194, 198 
Ws. ΡΥ eee 193 
Lit soe ΤΕΥ 129, 134,137 
ΡΜ ΤΥ 0. τ} Ὁ 90 
V0 ΣΡ ἩΎΡΕ τ 151, 190 
ἸππΟ  Ἰ τ, 2 τ τον 188, 190, 194 
τι..11:- 8 τ εν Ὁ 924 
πο πε ΣΝ 90 
Titus i. 5—9...155,, 159, 171 ae 
Le 610 ate doh te atten centeeeeeeeaee 12} 
Hebrews 11. Ufc. ξο ee 376 
Liha dl csaenssoneecaale jane Σ 376 


INDEX OF AUTHORITIES. 


PAGE 

HMMA ν. LA. secveceoe xececveceway 376 
iad ke oe eare cere Pacts © 376 
EERIE ran os andere ΚΕ ose eee 38 
ἘΠῚ ἢ, ΔΑ τ αζες δεῖξε 190. 195 

ΒΕ ΤΠ ΓΕ Ο ts. τον ον του ζϑοῖς οζϑεςι τον 276 
Ty ales eens GEERT eRe eee 324 

le πο πε εἰν ὅπως τ το ἐρκνῶν ἀν νος, 31 
ΡΣ GR earls cia darcle, sa aieode came 38 
MATES cts eiteeet be soe caee to aaa 276 
MIL OPSIL Pe facade ΤΥ πο ἂν! 130 
IOS te cre Rees taratiewe’ sata ease 76 

ὩΣ MDL aR. has Wace cee oas Osta tee 198 
ΟΝ τ AS τος ak iano 356 
eek onto nceerdd ade cee τες αι το ate 128 

MME IC ae todo eens one ean ΤΡ ΕΠ 30 
= rd Rc er 146 


401 


PAGE 

Me Beteniyeplon.cc2ede<s-s tesscase-.04,> LAG 
MOMMA Va llascronuee.aseey cea 130, 198 
ΖΦ. ΠΝ γε Ὁ μάθε neem ΡΟ Sete ons ΑΝ 198 
Ξ ἘΞ Ξτ τ  Π 8 : ΡΥ ον Ὁ tees ΕΝ ΓΈ 95 
See Π ΠΥ Ἐπ ΣΡ scene a steteeictd hs 198 
RIGVGlatiGneily Θ᾽. θα τε τ. τόσον ὃς ἐς 154 
Bs Ply 20 So scccuee vaewvensvicy ccs 95 

τ Gnas Genics πο tee se ener dees 324 

ἔξ το Mig De | sbi e sodae na δου φτάνει ὃς 324 
ἘΞ 110 een ict Lace eee 324. 
RD Warn aalece catyaeleaieciantadecteencs len 
SEF SNe igen ao cee Geer 517 
RIMS Dee Asn οὐονν δι ον dive wtpenes 324 
ER Ἐπ δος, ννοος cs ceases γον: 924 
Soa MRIs WO HUG is seegec sehen stares ec 324 


INDEX OF AUTHORITIES. 


A 


Aeneid VI., 635, 272, 273. 

Agath. Conc. 223, 245, 272. 

Allgemeine Kirchenzeit, 26. 

Ambrose, Opera, 194, 195, 286, 329, 
367. 

Ammianus Marcellinus, 73, 360, 375, 
367. 

Ancyra, Conce., 95, 375. 

Antioch, Conc., 72, 238, 240, 241, 
242,250, 252. 

Apostolical Constitutions, 65, 241, 
277. 

Apostles’ Spirit of, Example, 29. 

Aquinas, Thos., Summa, 3, 385. 

‘Arles, Conc., 74, 240. 

Arnold’s Christian Life, 239. 

Wahre-Abbildung der Ersten. 
Christ.” ‘4to.,,'28, (248, 250, 251, 
331. 

Athanasius, Apol., 168. 

De Synodo Arimin., 236. 

Augusti, Denkwiirdigkeiten, 88, 285, 
322, 329, 330, 331, 342, 378, 342- 
346. 

Augustine, Ep., 63, 65, 72, 167, 280, 
332, 342, 345, 346. 

Opera, 196, 140. 

Arelat. Conc., 253. 

Aurel. Conc., 76, 241, 253. 


34% 


B 


Barcelona, Cone., 

Barnes’ Apostolical Church, 145, 
187. 

Reply, 122. 

Barrington’s Miscel., 42. 

Barrow, Dr., on Pope’s Supremacy, 
41, 106. 

Basil the Great, 253, 293, 299, 304, 
329. 

Baudry’s Selections, 61. 

Baumgarten, Erliuter. Christ. Alt., 
108, 152. 

Beamish’s Letter to Pusey, 320. 

Bengel, Erklir. Offenbarung, 250. 

Bernaldus, Constantiensis, 176. 

Beza, ou Acts xiv. 23, 60. 

Bibles, Swiss, French, Italian, etc., 
on Acts xiv. 23, 60. ; 

Bilroth. Comment., 91. 

Bingham, 52, 66, 68, 71, 74, 106, 
Dia 

Blondell, on Elections, 68, 100, 152, 
153, 176, 306. 

Bohmer, J. H., Diss. Juris Eccles. 
Antiq., 99, 100, 145, 226, 356, 386. 

Jus. Protestant, 381. 

Bohmer,W., Alterthumswissenschaft, 
68, 70, 77,223. 

Bowden’s Works, 130. 


402 


Bowdler’s Apostolical Succession, 
145, 191, 207, 260. 

Bracar., Conc., 223, 246, 260. 

Brown’s Law of Christ, 263. 

Bull, Bishop, Defensio Fid. Nic., 
327. 

Bunsen’s Hippolitus, 244. 

Burnet’s History of Reformation, 
203. 

Burton’s History of the Christian 
Church, 68. 


σ 


Campbell’s Lectures on Eccl. Hist., 
142, 150, 154, 164, 165. 

Canons, Apostolical, 239, 241. 

Carthag., Cone., 68, 72, 223, 240, 
241. 

Chapman, in Smyth’s Presbytery 
and Prelacy, 131. 

Chalcedon, Conce., 67, 250, 264. 

Chauncey, Epise., 95. 

Chrysostom, Works, 53, 72, 100, 110, 
14(. 142, 152, 173, 174, 250, 261, 
264, 303, 329, 331, 381. 

Christian Observer, 309, 369. 

Clarkson’s Works, 68, 112, 165, 170, 
185, 211, 298, 299, 304, 306. 

Clement of Alexandria, 140, 159, 
281, 303. 

Clemens, Romanus, Ep. ad Corinth, 
32, 34, 46, 60, 62, 153. 

Codex Ecclesiae Africanae, 59. 
Coleman’s Ancient Christianity, 189, 
234, 238, 239, 248, 249, 328, 368. 
Christian Antiquities, 200, 368. 

Colton, C., on Episcopacy, 124. 

Conder’s Non-Conformity, 189, 227, 
347. 

Constant., Cone., 67. 

Constitutions, Apostolical, 140, 248, 
250, 251, 375. 

Constitutions and Canons of the 
Epis. Church, 212, 370. 

Cyprian, 53, 64, 66, 67, 77, 83, 99- 
102, 104, 111, 166, 228, 237, 254, 
255.) 256, 508. 

Cranmer, Bishop, 203. 

Cyril of Jerusalem, 140. 


D 
Daillé, ci-dessus, 66, 102, 145. 
D’ Aubigné’s History of Reformation, 
77, 227, 237, 345, 347, 365. 
Davidson’s Keel. Polity, 164. 


INDEX OF AUTHORITIES. 


Demosthenes, 58. 

De Wette, Acts xiv. 23, 60, 89. 

Diodati, on Acts xiv. 23, 60. 

Du Pin, Antiqua Ecclesiae Disci- 
plina, 49, 95, 99, 108, 107. 

Sac. Geog. Africa., 167. 


E 


Echell. Abr., Eutychius Vindicatus, 
200. 

Edin, Rev., 181-183. 

Eichhorn, Can. Recht., 236. 

Epiphanius, 140. 

Eliberis, Council, 238, 253. 

Ephraem, the Syrian, 343. 

Erasmus’ Works, 138. 

Ernst, Kirchenrecht, 225, 228. 

Eschenburg, Versuch, Religionsvor- 
trage, 356, 360. 

Eutychius of Alexandria, 161. 

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 65, 
97, 99, 105, 111, 140, 165. Agee 
237, 246, 247, 250, 324-329, 332. 

Vit. Const., 293, 303, 357. 


F 


Fathers, early, on Elections, 61. 

Firmilian, 172, 226. 

Fuchs’ Bibliotheca, 108, 115. 

G 

Gabler, De Epise. Prim. Eccl. 177, 
225. 

Gangra, Conc., 241, 245, 250. 

Gerbert, Musica Sacra, 327, 330. 

Gehardi, Loci, Theolog., 187. 

Gieseler, Lehrbuch, 198, 225, 227. 

Gieseler, Cunningham’s Trans., 56, 
70, 124, 226, 227. 

Goode’s Divine Rule, 193, 194, 206, 
225. 

Gratian, 176. 

Gregory the Great, 74. 

Gregory Nazianzen, 65, 71, 76, 152, 
175; 245, 951: 260: 

Greiling, Christengemeinen, 35, 47, 


Gretser, De Benedictionibus, 375, 
382. 

Grossman, D., Ueber eine Reforma- 
tion der Protestantischen Kirch. 
Verfass. in Kénigr. Sachsen, 52. 

Grotius, Comment ad Act. xi. 30, 45; 
xiv. 23, 60, 324. 

Guerike, Kirch. Gesch., 108, 223, 
225, 226, 


INDEX OF AUTHORITIES. 


H 


Haenen, Exercit. De Benedic., 379. 

Hales’ Works, 129. 

Hall, Bishop, 277. 

Hall, Robert, 251, 263, 388. 

Hallam’s Constitutional Hist., 205, 
270, 271, 314, 316. 

Hammond, Henr., 176. 

Hardy, Rev. Th., 248, 263. 

Hawes’ Tribute, 216. 

Hawks, Rev. Dr., 207, 211. 

Hefele, C. J., ed. of Clem. ad Cor., 
62. 

Hegesippus, 140. 

Henke, Allgem. Gesch. der Christ. 
Kirch., 227, 236. 

Herder on Psalmody of the Ancient 
Church, 332, 333. 

Hertzog, Encyclopedia, 38, 330. 

Hetherington, Hist. of Westminster 
Ass., 205. 

Hilary, Comment., 194, 226, 229. 

Hind’s Hist., 42. 

Hooker’s Ecclesiastical Polity, 110. 

Hopkins’ Hist. of Puritans, 345. 

Horace, 348, 371, 373. 

Horne’s Introdue., 92. 

Hubbard, Rev. William, 245. 

Hugo, Grotius, 43. 

Hiillman, Urspriinge der Verfass. in 
Mittelalter, 312. 

H. W. D. of Philadelphia, 202. 

Hume, Hist. of Eng., 216. 


I 


Ignatius to the Philadelphians and 
Smyrneans, 59, 111, 162, 165. 

Iliad, XXITI., 51. 

EES 775, '3732) 0 

Infidelity, French, 29. 

Trenaeus’ Works, 157, 158, 193, 226, 
260. 

Isidor. Pelus., 336. 


J 


Jahn’s Archeol., 92, 93. 

Jerome’s Works, 67, 132, 140, 152, 
171, 173, 174, 198, 229, 258, 331. 

Jewel, Bishop, 193, 347. 

Justinian, 74, 264. 

Justin, Martyr, 155, 156, 280, 295, 
326. 


K 
Killen, Dr. W. D., Ancient Ch., 94. 


403 


| King’s Primitive Christianity, 68, 


96, 99, 106, 130, 164, 204. 


L 
Lactantius, Inst., 368. 


.Lampridius, Vit. Severi, 65. 


Lancey, De, Bishop, 198. 

Lange, Comment., 53. 

Apost. Church, 94. 

Laodicea, Council, 93, 168, 240, 245, 
250. 

Leo Allatius, De Eccl. Occident et 
Orient, 380. 

Leo the Great, 67. 

Leo VIL., 250. 

Liebetrut, Tag des Herrn, 124. 

Locke, on Government, 241. 

Lucian’s Philopatris, 281. 

Luther’s first Hymn-Book, 344. 

Works, 347; 


M 


Macaulay’s Miscel., 215. 271. 

Rev. of Hallam, 319. 

Rev. of Gladstone, 372. 

Magdeburg Centuriators, 112. 

Marea, Peter de, 225. 

Mason’s Works, 130, 135, 171, 172. 

Meyer, on Acts xiv. 23, 60. 

Miller, Rev. Dr., Letters, 203. 

Milton’s Prose Works, 142, 157, 161, 
162, 214, 253. 

Mosheim, De Rebus Christianorum 
ante Constantinum Magnum, Com- 
mentarli, 4to, 34, 46, 49, 50, 56, 
58, 68, 106, 108, 109, 117, 222, 
226,.227,. 236: 

Can. Recht., 106. 

Miinscher, Handbuch der Christ. 

Dog., 227. 

Miinter, Met. Offenbar., 323, 325, 327. 

Myer, Comment., 60. 


N 


Narbon., Cone., 260. 

Neal’s History of the Puritans, 271, 
315. 

Neander’s Allgemeine Geschichte 
der Christlichen Religion und 
Kirche, 33, 46, 48, 57, 58, 60, 89, 
92, 94, 108, 109, 110, 138, 201, 223, 
224, 226, 237, 242, 270, 327, 331. 

Geschichte der Pflantzung und 

Leitung der Christlichen Kirche, 

25, 31, 34, 35, 36, 40, 54, 58, 127, 

131, 136, 190, 224, 323, 356. 


404 


Neander’s Introduction, 18--24. 

Necessary erudition, 203. 

Neocaesarea, Conce., 375. 

Nice, Council, 49, 72, 238, 242, 364, 
375. 

Nicholas Tudeschus, 176. 


0 


Observer, Christian, 309, 369. 
Odyss., Homeri, 51. 

Onderdonk’s Episcopacy Tested, 143. 
Origen, against Celsus, 63, 100. 
Homily on Levit., 65, 103, 298, 
327. 

Com. in Math., 103, 113. 

De Orat., 148, 279. 

Opera, 227, 279, 282, 298, 326. 
Orleans, Cone., 76, 244, 253. 

Owen’s Gospel Church, 54, 85. 


P 


Paris, Cone., 78. 

Paulinus, 65. 

Pertsch, Cunon Recht., 31, 259, 225. 

Kirchliche Historie, Vol. I., 30, 
35, 69, 70, 94, 106, 228. 

Petavius, on Eutych. of Alex., 176, 
201. 

Pfaff, De Orig. Juris Eccl., 88, 94. 

Philo, 38. 

Pius of Rome, 155. 

Planck, Geschichte der Christlich. 
Kirchlichen, Gesellschafts - Ver- 
fassung, 5, Bde., 8vo., Vol. I., 27, 
30, OST 73; 108; 115, 916; 117, 
118, 122,-200,. 222, .223, 225, 227, 
236, 237, 238, 241, 244, 245, 250, 
252, 257, 253, 264. 

Pliny’s Letters, 97, 288, 324, 329. 

Nat. Hist., 301. 

Polycarp, Ep., to the Philippians, 
96, 154, 280. 

Pont. Diae. in Vit. Cyp., 66. 

Pontif. Rom., 67. 

Potter’s Antiq. of Greece, 299. 

Prideaux’s Conn., 299. 


Q 
Quien, Le, on Eutchyius of Alexan- 
dria, 201. 


R 


Ranke’s Hist. of Pope’s, 208. 
Recorder, Episc., 214. 

Rehkopf, Vit. Patriarch Alex., 201. 
Reland, Antiq. Sac. Vet. Heb., 379. 


INDEX OF AUTHORITIES. 


Renaudot, Hist. Patriarch Alex., 
200. 

Rheinwald, Kirchliche Archiologie, 
124,152, 198/357. 

Riddle’s Christian Antiquities, 66, 
68, 96, 98, 137, 152. 

— Chronology, 47, 51, 70, 72, 77, 
80, 110, 236, 304, 306. 

Rheinwald, Michael, 237, 357. 

Rigaltius, 138. 

Rohr’s Kritischen Predigerbiblio- 
thek, 55. 

Rothe, Die Anfainge der Christlichen 
Kirche, Vol. I., 25, 44,51, 53) 54, 
55, 127, 131, 136, 140, 141, 142, 
146, 188. 

Rufin, Hist. Eecl., 65. 


5 


Sack, Comment. Theolog. Inst., 31. 

Salvianus, 261. 

Sardica, Cone., 168, 238, 240, 375, 
285. 

Schaff, Apost. Ch., 94. 

Schoene, Geschichtsforschungen der 
Kirchlichen Gebrauchen und Ein- 
richtungen Christen, 28, 131, 166, 
167, 223, 285, 296, 307. 

Schroeter und Klein, Fiir Christen- 
thum Oppositionschrift, I., 28. 

Schoettgen, Horae Heb., 149. 

Scholiast, Greek, 174. 

Schroeckh, Kirch. Gesch., 264. 

Seriptores Ecclesiastici, De Musica, 
336. 

Selden, Origines et Romae, cited, 
200. 

Semisch, C., on Justin, 156, 294, 326. 

Severus, Alex., 64. 

Sidonius Apollinar., 73, 75, 76, 261. 

Siegel, Handbuch der Christlich. 
Kirchlichen Alterthiimer, 4 Bde., 
26, 30, 127, 223, 237, 240, 240, 252; 
378. 

Simonis, Vorlesungen iiber Christ. 
Alterthum., 77, 108. 

Siricius Ep. ad Himer., 71. 

Smyth, on Presbytery and Prelacy, 
193. 

Eccl. Repub., 209, 212, 234, 
240. 

—— Apostolical Succession, 294, 

~— Presbytery and not Prelacy, 
145, 203. 

Socrates’ History of the Church, 31, 
ΑἹ, 57, 65, 161, 169, 234, 258, 365. 


INDEX OF AUTHORITIES. 


Sozomen, Eccl. History, 65, 167, 168, 
169, 246, 248, 343. 

Spectator, Christian, 203. 

Spittler, Canon, Recht., 30, 220, 225, 
λῆς 

Stillingfleet’s Jrenicum,, 100, 152, 
203, 204, 232. 

Suetonius, 302. 

Suicer, on χειροτονέω; 59, 60. 

Thesaur., 220. 

Sulpitius, Severus, Vit. e. Martini, 
65, 253. 

Symmachus, Ep., 73. 

Synessii, Ep., 74, 150. 


ἐν 


Talmud, Jerusalem, 143. 

Tertullian’s Apology, 62, 97, 98, 
160, 286, 287, 296, 300, 303, 325, 
357. 

De Poenit., 104. 

De Pudicit., 99. 

De Fuga, 113. 

—— Ad. Castitat., 111, 113, 226. 

De Jejun., 116. 

—- De Anima, 286, 325. 

De Corona, 293. 

De Bapt., 174, 339. 

— De Monog., 226. 

De Praescrip, 225. 

De Oratione, 282, 283, 303. 

Theocritus, 322. 

Theodoret, Eccl. History, 65, 103, 
168, 330, 343. 

Theodorus Mopsues., 173, 174, 329. 

Theodosian, Codex, 246, 248, 257. 

Thomas de Jesu, 346. 

Tindal, on Acts xiv. 24, 61. 

Rights of Ch., 94. 

Toletum, Cone., 260. 

Tracts for the Times, 83, 123. 

Trajan’s Epistle, 24. 


U 


Urban 11., Pope 176. 
Usher, Archbishop, 177. 


Vv 


Valentinian III., 75, 107, 252. 

Valesius in Euseb., 52. 

Vater and Henke, Allgem. Kirch. 
Gesch., 236. 

Venema, Institutiones Hist. Eccl., 
120. 

Vitringa, De Synagoga Vetere, 4to, 
39, 44, 88, 94, 147, 374, 375, 379. 


WwW 


Waddington’s Church Hist., 154. 

Walch, De Hymnis Eccl. Apost., 
302. 

Hist. der Papste, 328, 367. 

Whately’s Errors of Romanism, 312. 

Kingdom of Christ, 43, 51, 150, 
184, 290, 292. 

—— Hist. of Religious Worship, 48, 
56. 

Whitaker, 204. 

Wilkins, Bp., on Gift of Prayer, 
277. 

Wilson, on Church Gov., 146. 

Wiseman, Dr., on the Tractarian 
movement, 320. 

Witsius, De Oratione, 306. 


τ Χ 
Xenophon’s Memorabilia, 133. 


Z 


Ziegler’s Versuch der Kirchlichen 
Verfassungsformen, 127, 225, 243, 
250, 264. 

Zunz, Die Gottesdienstlichen Vor- 
trige der Juden., 149. 


406 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 


A 


Admission to the church, mode of, 
114. 

“Ἄγγελος τῆς ἐκκλεσίας, 147. 

Alexandria, mother church, 242. 

Ambrose chosen bishop, 65, 71,. 

Angel of churches supposed bishop, 
138; not bishop, 147-150. 

Antistes, antistes sacrorum, 152. 

Apollos not ordained, 190. 

Apostles, their appropriate office, 
180; shun the distinctions of rank, 
30; disown episcopal power, 30, 
138; brotherly salutations, 3]; 
remonstrate with the church, and 
address them as independent fra- 
ternity, 31-33, 35; did not bap- 
tize, 137; their oversight of the 
churches, 142. 

Apostolical succession, origin of, 
264; derived from Romish church, 
266; groundless, 177, 181, 219; 
presbyterian, not episcopal, 180. 

Ἄρχοντες ἐκκλησιῷν, 152. 

Aristocracy in elections, 74; govern 
the church, 75: rise in the church, 
224-228; conventional, unauthor- 
ized, 228. 

Assumptions of episcopacy, 177. 

Attitude in prayer, 299, 302. 

Auretius, reader, 71. 


B 

Baptism by presbyters, 136; by the 
laity, 230, 285. 

Barnabas the Evangelist, 146. 

Benediction, origin and import of 
the rite, 373; Aaronitic, 374; 
apostolical, entirely unlike the 
benediction of the Jewish priest- 
hood and that of prelacy, 376- 
379; mode of administering the 
rite, 379; true idea of it, 375; 
abuses of it, 381-383. 

Bengel, on angel of the church, 156. 

Bible, a republican book, 215, 248. 

, withheld from the laity, 289. 

Bingham, on elections, 66, 68; on 
the liturgy, 292. 

Bishops, their office, 22, 36 ; without 


a name in the Bible, 179, 221; 
their election resisted, 73; not dis- 
tinguished from presbyters, 126; 
proof, 128, 163; plurality of, in- 
admissible, 129 ; never confounded 
with apostles or deacons, 130; de- 
rived from Greek, 131; titles in- 
terchanged with presbyters, 128, 
seq., 152; their qualifications, 132 ; 
duties the same as those of pres- 
byters, 135; but one in a diocese, 
129, 180; no official title in the 
Scriptures, 138, 169, 177-179; not 
superior in rank to presbyters, 153, 
seq.; according to Clement, 153 ; 
to Polycarp, 154; to Justin Mar- 
tyr, 155; to Irenaeus, 157; to 
Clement of Alexandria, 159; to 
Tertullian, 160; merely presby- 
ters, 162; pastors only of single 
parishes, 164; a bishop’s charge 
originally a single congregation, 
162, seq.; admitted by Episeopa- 
lians, 170, 203, seq.; all met for 
worship in the same place, 165; 
personally known to their bishop, 
165, 166; limited in extent, 166; 
bishops in country towns, 166, 
167; vast multitudes of them, 167, 
note; ascendency of city bishops, 
167, 239; identical in rank with 
presbyters, according to Jerome, 
171, 229; to Hilary, 230; to Chry- 
sostom, 173, 174; to Theodoret, 
174; to the Greek scholiast, 174; 
to Elias, archbishop of Crete, and 
to Gregory Nazianzen, to Isidorus 
Hispalensis, 175, 176 ; to Bernald- 
us Constantiensis, to Pope Urban, 
to Gratian, to Nicholas Tudeschus, 
176; J. P. Launcelot, and to Gie- 
seler, 176; origin of their distine- 
tion from presbyters, 198; causes 
of their increasing ascendency, 
227; called priest, 227; their au- 
thority yielded by silent consent, 
223; mildly exercised at first, 
223: authority increased by coun- 
cils, 235; bishops in the city, their 
pre-eminence, 220, 228, 249, 252; 
tyranny over the clergy, hold the 


INDEX OF 


revenues of the 
power over the clergy, 225, 226, 
240, 254; vast accumulation of 
their wealth, 240, 245; means of 
carrying their measures, 250; di- 
vine rights of, 254; their intole- 
rance, 257 ; their pride, 259; their 
ignorance, 260, 315, 306. 


C 


Campbell on the Episcopate of Tim- 
othy and Titus, 142. 

Canon of Valencia on elections, 67. 

Carthage, discipline by the church 
of, 100, 102. 

Causae ecclesiasticae, 245, 

Catechetical instructions, 238; favor 
Episcopacy, 238. 

Catholics, multitude of their bishops, 
263. 

Chalcedon, council, 67, 250, 264. 

Christ, his example, 29; his instruc- 
tions, 29; his spirit, 29; worship- 
ed as divine in primitive psalm- 
ody, 325-327. 

Christianity, paganized by papacy, 
274; suffers no alliance, with the 
state, 251, 263. 

Christians, styled Jews, 39. 

Chrysostom chosen bishop, 65; on 
bishops and presbyters, 130. 

Church, primitive, first formation, 
25; addressed by the apostles, 31, 
32; modeled after the synagogue, 
21, 33, 87-44; according to Nean- 
der, 41; Vitringa, 43; Whately, 
43 ; name derived from synagogue, 
40; kept pure, 84; one in a city, 
150, 163; a religious society, for 
religious ends, 229; no connection 
with state governments, but adapt- 
ed to any, 208, 251; restraints 
upon the clergy, 251; guarded 
against sectarianism, 209; gave 
scope to ministerial zeal, 210; pre- 
served harmony in the clergy, 210; 
formed an efficient ministry, 211; 
made an efficient laity, suited to 
our free institutions, 214; sove- 
reignty destroyed, 244; begins to 
inherit property by will, 240, 245, 
246; corruptions of, 259. 

Church government popular, 25, 37, 
108, 178; simple, 26, 28, 45; 
changed, 77; church and _ state 
united, 222-225. 


SUBJECTS. 407 


church, 245: Church and State, 245, 252, 263. 


|.Church, “ holy catholic,” 237, 274. 

Churches, formed alike, 60; bond 
of union in the apostles, 142; care 
of them by the apostles, 142; 
apostolical, their ascendency, 222-- 
225, 

Churchman on liturgies, 309. 

Clemens the Evangelist, 146. 

Clement of Rome, cited, 62, 153. 

Clergy, nominations in elections, 67; 
opposed by the people, 72; de- 
posed by the church, 106; disci- 
pline by them, 115-117; not pros- 
ecuting officers in the church, 121; 
two orders, 129, 154; subject to 
restraint by the church, 209; de- 
pressed by the bishop, 241, 245; 
unjust privileges, 285; distinctions 
observed with care, 269; party 
spirit of, 241, 249; sycophancy 
of, 250; civil and ecclesiastical 
powers, 251; appeals to the em- 
peror, 252; mercenary spirit, 252; 
claim divine right, 254, 256; per- 
secuting spirit, 257; ignorance, 
260, 306. 

College of presbyters, 20, 224. 

Collection sent by Saul, 139. 

Conder, on ordination, 139. 

on congregational singing in 
England, 347. 

Confederation of the churches, 116, 
235. 

Confusion of titles of bishop 
presbyter, 127, 138. 179, 180. 

Congregation, meaning of, 41. 

Congregational singing, 338-342; 
in Germany, 339. 

Consignat, 194, note. 

Constantinople, council, 67. 

Cornelius, chosen bishop, 67. 

Correspondence of the churches and 
bishops, 237. 

Council of the churches with the 
apostles, 32. 

Councils, their authority denied, 48; 
at Jerusalem, 135; result, not by 
James, 135, 136; their influence 
in forming episcopal government, 
116, 235. 

Creeds, primitive, none, 292. 

Cross, sign of, 368, 379. 

Cyprian on elections, 66, 68; on 


and 


discipline by the church, 99- 
102. 


408 INDEX OF 


D 


Daillé on elections, 66. 

Deacons chosen by the church, 53; 
their office, 127; induction to office, 
187; distinguished from presby- 
ters and bishops, 153. 

Declension, religious, 
episcopacy, 244, seq. 

Delegates sent by the churches, 33, 
54; their character, 54. 

Delegation from Antioch to Jerusa- 
lem, 139. 

Delegatus ecclesiae, 149. 

Delitzsch, Dr., on the angel of the 
church, 148, seq. 

Devotional influence of sacred song, 
341-347. 

Διάκονοι, 127,.156. 

Diocese, 169. 

Diocesan episcopacy, 239-242; dis- 
franchises the laity, 259; destroys 
the discipline of the church, 242. 

Discipline by the church, 33, 36, 37, 
87; argument from Scripture, 87, 
89; from the early fathers, 95, 
seq.; from ecclesiastical writers, 
107; from analogy, 109; usurped 
by the priesthood, 115; authori- 
ties, 107-114; at Carthage, 102; 
at Rome, 102; in the Eastern 
church, 102; right of lost, 118; 
the right inherent in the church, 
119; advantages of, 119, seq.; not 
punitive, 119; neglected in the 
Episcopal Church, 119, 122, 261; 
moral efficacy of it, 120; adminis- 
tered by bishops, 237, 117, 268; 
destroyed. 242, 261. 

Discipline neglected, 121-124. 

_ Disciplina Arecani, 237; is an argu- 
ment against a liturgy, 304. 

Disfranchisement of the laity, 259, 
242, 246. 

Disputes decided by the church, 33. 

Divine right, 69, 117, 177, 181, 204, 
227, 236, 254, 270; guidance, 76, 
117, 191 

Doctrinal truth enforced by psalm- 
ody, 341-349. 

Donatists, multitude of their bishops, 
167. 

Du Pin on discipline by the church, 
107; on primitive episcopacy, 167. 

Duties of bishop and presbyter iden- 
tical, 133. 


caused by 


SUBJECTS. 


E 


Edinburgh Review on apostolical 
succession, 182, 183. 

‘Hye ona, 133. 

‘Hyovmevor, 126. 

Elections by the church, 32, 34, 53, 
54; loss of, 68-79; of an apostle, 
51; by the brethren according to 
Mosheim, Neander, Grossman, 
Rohr, 52; Chrysostom, 53; of the 
deacons, 53; of the delegates, 54; 
of the presbyters, 55; usual mode 
of, 60; mode of resistance by the 
bishops, 70; tumultuous proceed- 
ings, 71; efforts to correct them, 
73; controlled by the bishops, 71; 
canonical, apostolical, 78; right 
of every church, 79; preserves 
balance of influence, 80; founda- 
tion of religious liberty, 79; safe- 
guard of the ministry, 83; of the 
church, 84; promotes mutual en- 
dearments between pastor and 
people, 85; produces an efficient 
ministry, 85. 

Emperors, Christian, mistaken efforts 
to extend Christianity, 262, 263. 
Episcopacy, primitive, 132. See 
bishops. Illustrated, 163-169; 
fallacious reasoning of, 169; rise 
of, 228-230; causes of it, 220; 
summary of its rise, 259; anti- 
republican characteristics, 223- 
233; growth in this country, 295; 
illustrates the rise of American 
Episcopacy, 253; divine right of 
69, 117, 177, 236, 270; introduced 
irreligious men into the ministry, 
248; oppressive to the laity, 239, 
244-248, 268; creates unjust dis- 
tinctions among the clergy, 269; 
intolerant, 269; impairs the effi- 
cacy of preaching, 212, 311, 365, 
368; hindrances to ministerial 
usefulness, 212; wanting in libe- 
rality, 213; fails to preserve the 
unity of the church, 371; its ten- 
dency to superstition, 365, 384; _ 
encourages the idea of a vicarious 
religion, 384; encourages a dispo- 
sition to substitute the outward 
form for the inward spirit of re- 

ligion, 387. 
Episcopacy anti-republican, 292. 


| Episcopalians concede the identity 


INDEX OF 


of bishops and presbyters, 202; 
the validity of presbyterian ordi- 
nation, 184-207; unsupported by 
argument, 177, 181. 
Ἐπίσκοποι, 22, 126, 150, 153. 
Ἐπισκοποῦντες, 130. 
Ἔφοροι, 1; 
Eraclius chosen bishop, 65. 
Eustathius chosen bishop, 65. 
Excommunication by the church, 91, 
93; by the bishops, 115. 
Elections, ancient fathers on, 62-65. 


F 


Fellowship of the churches, 46, 142; 
encouraged by the apostles, 142; 
interrupted by episcopacy, 242. 

Firmilian on ordination by presby- 
ters, 192. 

Forms of prayer opposed to the spi- 
rit of Christianity, 275; to the ex- 
ample of Christ and the apostles, 
277, 278; contrary to the simpli- 
city of primitive worship, 279; 
unknown in the primitive church, 
285; opposed to gospel freedom, 
279; opposed to the simplicity of 

rimitive worship, 285, 294; at 
first indited by any one, 300-303 ; 
prepared for the ignorant, 307; 
not adapted to the desires of the 
worshiper, 308; wearisome by. 
repetition, 309; not in harmony 
with the subject of discourse, 310; 
adopted from pagans, 312. 


G 


German psalmody, 339. 

Gifts, miraculous, 189. 

Government of the church by the 
members of it, 109; changes 
through which it passed, 234, 263. 

Guidance, divine, claimed by the 
bishops, 254, 204, 228, 76, 259. 


H 


Hall, Robert, on church and state, 
251, 263. 

Hands, laying on of, 187-189. 

Harmony in the church, 27. 

Hawes’ tribute, 216. 

Hegesippus, character of James, 140. 

Heresies punished with great sever- 
ity, 257; greatly increased, 84, 
note, 258, 363, 371. 

IIeretics and heresies, 248, 257, 371. 


35 5 


SUBJECTS. 409 


Hierarchy, origin of, 225; further 
development, 227; metropolitan, 
242; influence of, on the laity, 
244; on the clergy, 248; on moral 
state of the church, 261. 

High church, 204, 269, 369. 

Hilary on primitive worship, 285; 
on presbyterian ordination, 194; 
on the rise of episcopacy, 230. 

Homilies in the primitive church, 
351; discourses of Peter, 351; of 
Paul, 353; characteristics of their 
preaching, 354; homilies in Greek 
church, characteristics, 360 ; causes 
of the forming of this style, 362- 
364; homilies in the Latin church, 
365; causes productive of their 
characteristics, 366-368. 

H. W. D., of Philadelphia, 202. 

Hymns of human composition for- 
bidden, 334. 


I 


Identity of bishops and presbyters, 
126. See under each term bishop 
and presbyter. 

Ignatius, his epistles suspected, 
162; interpolated, 162; do not 
support episcopacy, 163. 

Ignorance of the clergy, 260, 306, 366. 

Imposition of hands, 141, 144. 

Independence of the churches, 34, 
45,49; asserted by Mosheim, 48, 
49; by Dr. Barrow, 46; by Rid- 
dle, 47: by Whately, 48, 49. 

Innocent, 111; arrogant pretensions, 
78. 

Instrumental music in churches, 335. 

Interventors in elections, 72. 

Irenaeus, identity of bishops and 
presbyters, 157, 158. 


J 


James not bishop at Jerusalem, 139; 
reasons for his residence there— 
his character, 140. 5 

Jerome on elections, 67; on bishops. 
and presbyters, 132, 197; on the 
rise of episcopacy, 229. 

Jerusalem, council at, 135; seat of 
the Christian religion, 135-139. 

Judgment, private right of, infringed, 
247, 244. 

Jury of the church, trial by, 120. 

Justin Martyr cited, 155; on primi- 
tive worship and ordinances, 294. 


410 INDEX OF 


K 
Κυβέρνησίς and διδασκαλία, 18. 


L 


Laity, 230; disfranchised, 239, 246 ; 
oppressed, 239; baptize, 226, 230. 

Laity and clergy, balance of power 
between, 80; disfranchised, 117; 
injustice to them, 239, 268; loss 
of their spiritual privileges, 246 ; 
indifferent to the interests of the 
church, 246; to their Christian 
fellowship, 264; lose control of 
revenues, 245. 

Layman’s Bible, 342. 

Lapsed, censure of, 115. 

Laws enacted by the people, 49, 110, 
117-119; right taken from them, 
247. 

Legatus ecclesiae, 147. 

Letters addressed to the church, 110; 
missive by the church, 111. 

Liberty, religious, loss of, 81. 

Litigations settled by the church, 37. 

Liturgy formed by each bishop, 303 ; 
unknown in the primitive church, 
288; no relics of any, nor record 
of such as found at this time, 292; 
appeal is made to tradition for 
such forms as belong to the litur- 
gy, 293; liturgies the production 
of a corrupt age, 306; for an ig- 
norant priesthood, 306, 307; 
wearisome by repetitions, 309; en- 
croach upon the time which should 
be allotted to the sermon, 311; 
exalt the inventions of man above 
the word of God, 311; English 
liturgy of popish and pagan ori- 
gin, 312; erroneous in doctrine, 
313-320. 

Lord’s Prayer not a prescribed form, 
278; unknown as such by the apos- 
tles and apostolical fathers, 279 ; 
summary of conclusions respecting 
it, 280; unsuited to the Christian 
dispensation, 284; varied phrase- 
ology, 278, 284. 

Luther a reformer by his musical 
powers, 346. 


M 
ἽΝ 72, 147. 
Mak the Evangelist, 199, 200. 


SUBJECTS. 


Martin of Tours chosen bishop, 71. 
Mason, Dr., on equality of bishops 
and presbyters, 135; cited, 180. 

Maximianists, their bishops, 167. 

Μετά, meaning of, 141. 

Miletius chosen bishop, 65. 

Milton’s Prose Works cited, 150, 142, 
157, 161, 162, 215, 253, 371, 

Ministers, none superior to presby- 
ters, 137. 

Mosheim on elections by the church, 
58. See Index of Authorities. 
Metropolitan government, estab- 

lished, 242, 243; means of its es- 
tablishment, 244; results, 244. 
Music sacred, power of, 338-342. 


N 


Necessary erudition, 203. 

Neander on the two great parties in 
the church, 288. See Index of 
Authorities. 

Nice, Council, on elections, 66. 

Nightingale of Wittenberg, 345. 


0 


Offices of clergy multiplied, 290, 248, 
367. 

Officers of the church, 35, 36. 

Omissions providential, 290, 311, 376, 
370, 378. 

Onderdonk on office of Timothy, 143. 

Orders, but two in the priesthood, 
153. 

Ordination claimed by bishops, 255; 
by presbyters, 159; import of it, 
189, note; right of presbyters ac- 
cording to Firmilian, 192; to Ire- 
naeus, 193; to Hilary, 194; to 
Jerome, 197-199; to Eutychius of 
Alexandria, 161, 200; to Planck, 
201; to Neander, 201; to Blon- 
dell, 201; to the Canons, 202; to 
Dr. Miller, 203; various Episcopal 
authorities, 202-207; by Cranmer, 
203; Necessary erudition, 203; 
Whittaker, Usher, 204; Stilling- 
fleet, Forbes, King, 204; Goode, 
206; Bowdler, 206; Summary, 
206; Clarkson, 169; by divine 
right, 255. 

Organs in church music, 335. 

Origen as a preacher, 360; on disci- 
pline, 103. 

“Ὅση δύναμις αὐτῷ, of Justin, 296-299. 


| "OxAats τοῖς, 73. 


INDEX OF 


Outward religion, 287, 369, 382, 387, 
388. 
Overseers, name, 35. 


P 

Paganism in papacy, 272-274. 

Papal government, 265. 

Parochial bishops, 163; parochial 
system, 220-223. 

Passive obedience, 270. 

Pastor not a prosecuting officer, 121. 

Pastores, 152. 

Patres ecclesiae, 152. 

Patriarchal government, 264. 

Paul and Barnabas ordaining pres- 
byters, 60; in council at Jefusa- 
lem, 135; his ordination, 191. 

Peace of the church by discipline, 
121. 

Pearson on elections, 66. 

Penance, system of, 116; promotes 
the bishop’s power, 238. 

Penitents restored by the church, 
104. 

People overreached in elections, 77 ; 
people govern themselves in every- 
thing, 109; rights abridged by 
councils, 235, 236. 

Persecution under Trojan, 27. 

Placet, visum est, 236. 

Planck on divine right, 254-256. 
See Index of Authorities. 

Ποιμαίνω, 134. 

Polycarp, cited, 96, 165, 166. 

Pontificale Romanum, 67. 

Popish affinities in the liturgy, 272- 
299, 254, 301, 312-320. 

Popish and pagan affinities, 272, 
312, 314, 315, 319, 320, 362, 386. 
Praepositi, 152; praesides, praesi- 

dentes, praesules, 152. 

Prayers of the primitive church, 275. 
See forms of prayer, prayers of 
Christ and the apostles, extem- 
pore, 278, 297; Lord’s Prayer, 
278; attitude in, 302. 

Prelacy i injurious, unjust, 268-271. 

Presbyters, their office, 21, 36, 126: 
choice of them, 55: titles, 126, 152; 
equality with bishops, 126- 178; 
addressed as bishops, 128; term 
derived from Jews, 131; appella- 
tions interchanged with bishops, 
126, 151; qualifications, 132; du- 
ties identical with presbyter, 133, 
162; teachers of the church, 134; 


SUBJECTS. 411 


counselors, 135; administer ordi- 
nances, 136; ordain, 137; distin- 
guished from deacons, 153; equal 
to bishops, according to Clement, 
152; to Polycarp, 154; to Justin 
Martyr, 157; to Irenaeus, 155; to 
Clement of Alexandria, 159; to 
Tertullian, 160; ascendency of 
those in a city, 221; their right to 
ordain, 169; according to Firmil- 
ian, 192; to Hilary, 193, 226; to 
Jerome, 197; to Eutychius of Al- 
exandria, 201; to Planck, 201; to 
Neander, 201; to Blondell, 203; 
to Dr. Miller, 203;. to various 
Episcopal authorities, according 
to Chrysostom, 173, 174; to Theo- 
doret, 174; to the Greek scholiast, 
174; to Elias of Crete, and to 
Gregory Nazianzen, 175; to Isido- 
rus, to Bernaldus, to Pope Urban, 
176; to Nicholas Tudeschus, to J. 
P. Launcelot, and to Gieseler, 176; 
College of, 224. 

Πρεσβύτεροι, 127, 135, 152. 

President of presbyters, 195, 224, 
229, 231. 

Priesthood, Jewish, disowned by the 
church, 43; divine right of, 54, 
69, 244, 254, 204-227, 236, 270. 

Priesthood, discipline by, 115. 

Priests, bishops so-called, 227; claim 
to be divinely appointed, 227, 235, 
253. 

Proclus, 76. 

Πρόεδροι, 155. 

Προεστώς, 168, 169, 148, 156, 295. 

Προεστῷτες, 149, 152, 160, 137. 

Προιστάμενοι, 126, 152. 

Προίστημι, 133 

Προστάται, 152. 

Προφῆται, 147. 

Protest against secular power, 78 ; 
of Free Church in Scotland, 81, 
82. 

Psalmody of the primitive church, 
321; the first disciples indited and 
sang songs, 324; fragments of 
such in the New Testament, 324; 
songs of primitive Christians, 327; 
Christ the subject of their songs, 
325; one primitive hymn remains, 
327; mode of singing, 328, 325, 
329; no instrumental music, 328; 
responsive singing not general; 
all the congregation sang, 030; 


412 INDEX OF 


delight of primitive Christians in 
it, 331; power of ancient psalm- 
ody, 332; changes in ancient 
psalmody, 333-337; claimed by 
the clergy, 337; means of propa- 
gating doctrinal truth, 341; of 
moral discipline, 347; importance 

. of simplicity in it, 348. 

Purgatory of pagan origin, 273. 

Puritans, origin of the name, 315; 
their wisdom and piety, 215; by 
Hume, 216; their legacy to us, 
217; defection from their religion, 
never, 218; objections to Prayer- 
Book, 315. 

Purity of the church by discipline, 
121. 


R 


Receive the Holy Ghost, 188, 201, 
256, 317; origin of the term, 256, 
317. 

Republic of the church, 45, 48, 214, 
234, 270. 

Revenues of church held by bish- 
ops, 245; taken from the laity, 
246. 

Riddle on elections, 68; on presby- 
terian ministry, 137. 

Right divine of bishops, origin of, 
in the Episcopal Church, 204, 318 ; 
in the ancient church, 270. 

Ritualism and ritualists, 212, 312, 
365, note, 368, 369, note, 371, 384, 
387. 

Ritualists’ boast, 319. 

Rock of the church, 113. 

Roman government tolerated all re- 
ligions, 26. 

Romans ritualists, 299, 312. 

Romanizing germs in the Prayer- 
Book, 318. 

Romish Church, corruption of, 266. 

Ruler of the synagogue, 44; his du- 
ties, 149. 

Russell, Lord J., on ritualism, 267. 


5 


Sacrament, how administered primi- 
tively, 294. 

Σάρξ, 92. 

Scottish Free Church, 81. 

Scriptural exposition, importance of, 
358-360. 

Secular music corrupts the worship 
of the church, 336. 


SUBJECTS. 


Secular power, interference, 72, 77. 

Seniores, seniores plebis, 152. 

Shepherd, office of bishop and pres- 
byter, 134. 

Silas the Evangelist, 146. 

Simonis on discipline by the church, 
107. 

Singers in a choir in the fourth cen- 
tury, 336. 

Way ΠῚ, 22, 147-151. 

Sovereignty of the church destroyed, 
244, 

Spirit’s guidance claimed, 228, 259. 

eet on rise of episcopacy, 

31. 

Stuart, Prof., on the angel of the 
church, 148, seq. 

Submission passive, doctrine of, 138, 
173, 225, 236, 253-257. 

Succession, apostolical, absurdity of, 
181, 182; origin of, derived from 
the Romish Church, 266, 267; only 
in person, 185. 

Succession, apostolical, and divine 
right, 48, 69, 117, 177, 181, 201, 
204, 227, 236, 244, 254, 256, 270, 
274, 285, 382, 386. 

Suffrage, universal, 56; right of, 81. 
See Elections. 

Sycophancy of the clergy, 250. 

Sylvanus the Evangelist, 146. 

Synagogue, endeared to the Jew, 37; 
ruler. 44; popular in government, 
44 


Synods, power over the church, 117. 
Ἕ 


Temple-service unsuited 
church, 87; discarded, 43. 

Tertullian, discipline by the church, 
98; on elections, 62; on baptism 
by laity, 226: on primitive order, 
288; on primitive worship and 
ordinances, 299; Antagonisticus, 
288; on the Lord’s Prayer, 281. 

Testimonio adepti, 62. 

Timothy, supposed bishop, 144; not 
bishop of Ephesus, 142; Timothy 
an evangelist, 143; travels with 
and for the apostle, 143; entreated 
to remain at Ephesus, 145. 

Titus, supposed bishop, 145; not 
bishop at Crete, 146. 

Tractarian movement admired by 
Catholics, 320. 


to the 


INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 413 


Tractarians assign origin of liturgies | Vicarious priesthood, 334. 
to the fifth century, 305. Visitors at elections, 74. 
Tradition of forms, 293. Ww 


Trajan on songs of primitive Chris- 
Wealth of the clergy, 246, 253. 


tians, 324, 329; to Pliny, 97. 

Truth, religious, its simplicity gives | Westminster Divines, Hethering- 
it power, 308. ton’s, 215. 

Tumults of elections, 73. Whately on omissions in Szripture, 

290, 291, 311, 370, 376, 378; on 
apostolical succession, 183, 184. 

Whitgift on divine right, 205. 

Whitby, Dr., on the office of Timo- 
thy and Titus, 146. 

Wilkins, Bishop, on gift of prayer, 
277. 

Wiseman, Dr., on the Tractarian 
movement, 320. 

Worship of the church simple, 38, 
300-802, 332; does not tolerate 
disorder, 276, 288; primitive and 
ordinances, 294. 


Χ 


U 


Union of church and state, 251, 252, 
308. 

Unity of the church unknown in 
apostolical age, 45; absurd, 371; 
influence in establishing the epis- 
copal government, 237. 

Unprotestantizing efforts, 267. 

Usage, apostolical, 112. 

Usurpation of the bishops in elec- 
tions, 76; in discipline, 118. 


ν 


Valens, presbyter, defection of, 96. 

Valesius on discipline by the church, 
107. 

᾿ Veto of metropolitan, 72. 


35 ὃ 


Χαρίσματα, 189. 

Χειροτονηθείς, ete., 59. 

Χειροτονεῖν, meaning of, 58, 59, 61. 
Χειροτονήσαντες, 57, 61, 188. 


a 1... ..0.0ὲ.᾽..ϑ.ϑ..-ςςἘς.-.-.-ςἘςς..Ξ.θ:.ςςςςς.ς- 


Coleman’s Manual on Prelacy and Ritualism. 


THE 


APOSTOLICAL AND PRIMITIVE CHURCH, 


POPULAR IN ITS GOVERNMENT, SIMPLE AND 
INFORMAL IN ITS WORSHIP. 


BY LYMAN COLEMAN, D.D. 


2 Eo Se ECO 2a CO. 
PUBLISHERS, PHILADELPHIA. 


(FRoM THE PREFACE.) 


“The object of the author in writing this work is to commend to 
the consideration of the reader the admirable simplicity of the govern- 
ment and worship of the primitive church, in opposition to the polity 
and ceremonials of prelacy. 

“Tn the prosecution of this object he has sought, under the direction 
of the best guides, to go to the original sources, and first and chiefly to 
draw from them. On the constitution and government of the church 
none have written with greater ability, or with more extensive and 
searching erudition, than Mosheim, Planck, Neander and Rothe. 
These have been his principal reliance; and after these a great 


variety of authors. 
= * * * * * ὃς Ὰ 


“Tn the preparation of this work the author has studiously sought 
to write neither as a Congregationalist nor as a Presbyterian exclu- 
sively; but as the advocate of a free and popular government in the 
church ; and of simplicity in worship, in harmony with the free spirit 
of the Christian religion. It is enough for the author, and, as he 
would hope, for both Congregationalists and Presbyterians, if the 
church is set free from the bondage of a prelatical hierarchy, and 
trained, by simple and expressive rites, to worship God in spirit and 

1 


2 


in truth. In opposition to the assumptions of prelacy, there is com- 
mon ground sufficient for all the friends of popular government in the 
church of Christ to occupy. In the topics discussed they have equal 
interest, whether they would adopt a purely democratical or a repre- 
sentative form of government as the best means of defending the 
popular rights of the church. We heartily wish indeed for all true 
churchmen a closer conformity to the primitive pattern in government 
and in worship; but we have no controversy even with them on minor 
points, provided we may still be united with them in the higher prin- 
ciples of Christian fellowship and love.” 


NOTICES OF THE WORK. 
Rev. Dr. CoLeman— 

Dear Sir: The inspection of the new edition of your work on “The 
Apostolical and Primitive Church” brings back into fresh view the 
winter of 1843, when we were together at Berlin, and you were prose- 
cuting your studies with signal diligence in reference to the work, and 
were enjoying the society and counsels of Dr. Neander and other emi- 
nent historians. You certainly deserve a rich reward for your perse- 
verance in finishing the work which you then so enthusiastically began. 
The improvements which you have introduced into the new edition 
seem to me important, and will much augment the value of the work. 
It may be used very advantageously as a text-book in our theological 
seminaries. A large part of a professor’s lectures is lost for want of a 
text-book on the subject of those lectures. Although oral lectures are 
indispensable, still the printed text-book has some advantages over 
them. When students were confined to text-books without lectures, 
they acquired a kind of discipline which they do not acquire from lec- 
tures without text-books. They were apt to be more accurate and 
thorough; their knowledge was more fundamental and deep, although 
they were less enthusiastic in their studies than now and their attain- 
ments were less extensive. There are so many principles stated in 
your work, and they are illustrated by so many references to historical 
fact, that it must be a valuable book for study as well as for reading, and 
for recitation as well as for study. 

I hope that your long-continued labors on the constitution of the 
Primitive Church will be followed by those results which you, have 
aimed to secure—a diligent and candid attention of good men to the 
subject, and an ecclesiastical practice regulated by well-established 
principle. Yours, faithfully, 

Anpbover, February 3, 1869. Epwarp A. Park. 


3 


Princeton, N. J., February 12, 1869. 
Rev. Dr. CoLEMAN— 


Dear Sir: * * * This revised edition of your book on the Primitive 
Church is eminently seasonable in this day of tendency to ritual reli- 
gion, and when the taste for the showy and specious and external is 
becoming so prevalent. Your main position is one that cannot be re- 
futed. The hierarchy of later times, with its elaborate ceremonial, 
finds no precedent in the Christian Church until long after the days 
of the apostles. It is highly important, in view of the pretension with 
which the opposite is assumed, that all classes should have easy access 
to the proof of that fact. 

I have already introduced into my lectures many references to your 
book, and intend to recommend it as often as I traverse the field of its 
discussion. Yours, very truly, 

James C. Morrat. 


Union THEOLOGICAL Seminary, New York, February 27, 1869. 
Rev. Dr. CoLemMan— 

My Dear Sir: I have spent some time in looking over the plate- 
proofs of your work on the Apostolical and Primitive Church, and am 
free to say that I am greatly pleased with it. Itis careful and thorough 
in its method, and sound and solid in its conclusions. The time must 
come, though it may not come very soon, when honest controversy with 
respect to the polity and worship of the early Church must cease. You 
certainly have done your part toward bringing about that issue. I trust 
your book may be not only widely read, but closely studied. 

Yours, very truly, RosweE.u D. Hitcucock. 


(From ΤῊΝ EvancgevicaL Magazine, London.) 


“We hail with unmingled satisfaction the seasonable publication 
of this masterly volume. It is emphatically a book for the times. 
* * * It proceeds from the pen of a Christian and scholar, who has 
made himself known advantageously to the American and British 
public by his invaluable work on the ‘Antiquities of the Christian 
Church.’ * * * We know no volume in our language in which the 
scriptural -parity of Christian ministers is more firmly asserted and 
more satisfactorily proved.” 


(From Tue CuristiaAn Examiner, London.) 


“No minister of any denomination ought to remain without this 
volume fora day. From it alone he can obtain arguments more than 
sufficient to overturn the petulant heresy of the age.” 


4 


(From Tue Parrior, London.) 


“This work forms an admirable text-book upon the whole subject of 
church government; and the cheap form in which it is presented to 
the English public will place it within the reach of every dissenting 
minister and student, to whom it will be of especial value.” 


(From Tue Nonconrormist, London.) 
“It has avoided the popular errors of being verbose and overlaid, and 
is transparent, learned, concise, convincing. Few writers can say so 
much in few words as Mr. Coleman.” 


(From THE Rev. Dr. MILLER, 
Late Professor of Ecclesiastical History and Church Government in the 
Theological Seminary, Princeton, N. J. :) 

“T feel myself very much your debtor for the instructive and able 
manner in which you have executed your task. You have in my 
opinion fully demonstrated that Prelacy can find no support whatever, 
either in Scripture or primitive usage. It is not, I am deliberately per- 
suaded, more indubitably plain, from the word of God and from early 
Christian antiquity, that Transubstantiation and the Worship of Images 
are mere human inventions, than you have made it clearly to appear 
that diocesan episcopacy was superinduced on parochial episcopacy by 
clerical pride and ambition long after the apostolic age. So far as the gen- 
eral scope of your volume goes, I entirely concur with you, and rejoice 
in its appearance as a publication of importance and of sterling value.” 


(From THe Rev. Dr. Cox, in the New York Evangelist.) 

“T greet with pleasure, and have perused with profit, the excellent 
volume of Mr. Coleman’s. It evinces cool research, rich and various 
learning, historical accuracy and conclusive argument. I value it as 
a truly useful, excellent and seasonable manual on the important topics 
of which it treats, for authentic reference as well as entertaining pe- 
rusal. I can only say that I have been so gratified with its contents 
that I have a good conscience and free pen in commending it to the 
private as well as the public libraries of our countrymen.” 


(From Tue CuristiAN REVIEW.) 

“This work is one which will attract much attention, and serve as the 
storehouse of argument and authority on the subject of which it treats ; 
it abundantly redeems the promise of the title-page. The various parts 
are stated with great clearness, and every material point is sustained 
by the confirmation of the Fathers. 

“ While the book is one of great value in reference to the controversy 
on church polity, it contains also much information relating to the 
organization and worship of the early churches, which will make it 
acceptable to the general reader.” 


QOL ages αὐ £16 21644 
A i δά: at τ ats s 


3% 
ων Se ocr ΟΣ, Set 


i " 
ord ἣν - 
Y é 
) Ἃ 
Υ “ 
t iit 2 
} 
“ 
τ "ἢ ᾽ - a 
δ ἢ : 
ἌΣ » 
< é . 
ie et " 
᾿ m7 * 
rane fet) £ μ᾿ 
‘ 5 ‘ * 
§ »“Ὶ δ Ὁ 
Pts ὦ wiry (rc ν᾿ 
τς “1 J wy ry he 
ΔῈ ὁ . . 
ser 
LY 4 ͵ 
‘ 
ἐν Sy Teer > ς Ε 
sf « 
wy 9 ς 
ἃ ὃ é ᾽ 
- Μ 
222 εὖ" i y ΤῊΝ 
- ξ ῃ 
{ΕΣ » & Ὶ i 
a 


ids 4 . 
4 , Γ] 
ite 
ΓΆΡ » 
ny ..43..} - ὦ 
ΜΉ “αἱ ; 4 
Pes re: ivene 5 ares bth 9}: 


ον Sei tiinet el) σε Ἐν cae 


4.7 ; . aad 


3 s Paigry ὥς 
ιν ἂν a 
4 
4 
. 
. 
‘5 
» : P 
ἢ < ΐ εἰ 
if " 4 id Σ ml 
Ὁ» Looe 3 . 
4 ἢ , 
͵ ΩΓ ‘er vad 
4 ΓΙ, 
¢ 
1 
} cas . ' " ~ ζ΄, 
E i ; 


‘ fe wg 
~~ 2 
ek, -» 
ΠΥ ΕἾ Ρ να 
reg 
‘ t+ . 
i ᾽ Ia “Ge Tt ee 
τ = se 
i on τ 
ε ἢ 
ante n a 
" ὁ ΧΑ 
TY i a ox 
Ἢ 7 VAs. 
2 ᾿: - 
5 τ Ζ 1: PBs 
¢ tA = Δ 
“ὦ fe RN BAZ 
δ ἂν is 
7 ᾿ ΘΟ he | 
΄ Pi ey Κα . 
SY εἶ tive 4na%e ? 
> 
= ee Ὁ» 
site St iw Sart 
7 ¥ 4 . 
4} ΤΕ ζ 
" i tine ἔγγή 5 
J t aw uresu Vid 
΄ ὡς 
¢ . ‘ 
δ ς s 7 
i Sone ts. fw 
. 4 gue RA ὦ Pere bg 


wrad 3) 


UW sche εὐ stow an 


A 


δὲ λίην; δον 


ne if. 
Pile ekg 2:8 aotitiake: ; 


ἔν ὙΌΣ σὰ 


Ἢ Λ ᾿ ir 3 ae Pi a τ ὮΝ 


Dies’ 


=) =P 
EA a 
"Ὁ ἘΣ τὸ ἐν 


3 : == ἔ " A es tuk. ων 4 ἃ νὰ ἢ a ν Ε 
a ies ial 4 x bee ee ᾿ Seni ae as Ὁ ly . ΚΕ ἜΣ Α oe 
: = - ‘ : / a Wile kp μων 


ay 
‘tye 


ao PAD ΔῊ 
ἘΣ 
; ἽΝ: 
ui 


Nene GA he 
va 


